Treatment and outcomes of gastric cancer among United States‐born and foreign‐born Asians and Pacific Islanders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors investigated whether stage at diagnosis, cancer treatments, and survival of Asian and Pacific Islander (API) gastric cancer patients in the United States vary by birthplace. METHODS: The authors studied 6454 API and 10,099 non-Hispanic white (NHW) patients diagnosed with gastric cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program between 1992 and 2005. In descriptive analyses, stage, receipt of adequate lymph node examination (ALNE), and surgery were compared among US-born APIs, foreign-born (FB) APIs, and NHWs. Multivariate polytomous logistic and proportional hazards regression models were used to assess differences in cancer stage and survival, respectively, adjusted for clinical and demographic factors. RESULTS: As a group, APIs were more likely than NHWs to present with earlier-stage diagnoses and receive surgery and ALNE (P < .001). However, FB (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.86) but not US-born APIs (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.92-1.20) were significantly more likely to present at earlier stages than NHWs. Compared with NHW patients, FB and US-born APIs were more likely to receive surgery (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09 and aRR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14, respectively) and ALNE (aRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.41 and aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32, respectively). In fully adjusted models, FB (adjusted relative hazard ratios [aHR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90) but not US-born APIs (aHR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04) had more favorable survival than NHWs. CONCLUSIONS: The earlier-stage diagnosis, more complete surgical treatment, and improved survival of Asians and Pacific Islanders with gastric cancer may result from less aggressive tumors or more prompt recognition and thorough evaluation of early symptoms. Further study of these factors could improve outcomes for all patients with gastric cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".