Gender differences in colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, hospitalizations and surgical procedures in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades there have been changes in incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine gender differences in incidence, hospitalization, hospital-based procedures and mortality for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Data were derived from the Hospital Morbidity Database, Canadian Cancer Registry and the Canadian Mortality Database. RESULTS: Overall incidence and mortality rates for colorectal cancer are decreasing, but remain substantially higher for males. Absolute numbers of cases are similar for men and women. The top subsite for men was rectal cancer, which was third highest for women, whereas right colon cancer was highest for women. Male/female ratios for incidence and surgeries were highest for distal cancer and are increasing with time. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall incidence rates have shown a decline, absolute numbers of new colorectal cancer cases have increased. While men have higher colorectal cancer rates, women have similar numbers and screening should target both equally. Over the years, colorectal cancer subsites are showing a rightward shift, i.e. an increase in proximal subsites, but a leftward shift in male/female ratios, i.e. a greater decrease for the more distal subsites in females. The lower rates for women for distal cancer are compatible with a degree of hormonal protection based on oral contraceptive and hormone replacement therapy. Colorectal cancer will continue to be a considerable public health problem in the foreseeable future.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it