Socioeconomic Status and Childhood Solid Tumor and Lymphoma Incidence in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined the relation between neighborhood income, as a measure of socioeconomic status, and childhood cancer. Incident cases of childhood solid tumor and lymphoma in 1985-2001 were identified from provincial cancer registries in Canada. Residential postal codes at the time of diagnosis were used to assign cases to census neighborhoods. Person-years at risk were determined from quintiles of population by neighborhood income, sex, and 5-year age group, constructed using census population data. Poisson regression was used to calculate incidence rate ratios across neighborhood income quintiles. Compared with the incidence rate in the richest income quintile, moderately lower rate ratios of 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.63, 0.86) and 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.69, 1.04) were observed, respectively, for carcinomas and renal tumors in the poorest income quintile. No association was found for other types of cancer. Although a potential relation between socioeconomic status and childhood cancer cannot be excluded, the overall pattern seems compatible with random variation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".