MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115610111 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308915

Global patterns of cardia and non-cardia gastric cancer incidence in 2012

2015· article· en· W2115610111 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Cancer incidenceDemographyCancerGASTRIC CARDIAMedicineInternal medicineMathematicsAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Globally, gastric cancer incidence shows remarkable international variation and demonstrates distinct characteristics by the two major topographical subsites, cardia (CGC) and non-cardia (NCGC). Because global incidence estimates by subsite are lacking, we aimed to describe the worldwide incidence patterns of CGC and NCGC separately. DESIGN: Using Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Volume X (CI5X), we ascertained the proportions of CGC and NCGC by country, sex and age group (<65 and ≥65 years). These derived proportions were applied to GLOBOCAN 2012 data to estimate country-specific age-standardised CGC and NCGC incidence rates (ASR). Regional proportions were used to estimate rates for countries not included in CI5X. RESULTS: According to our estimates, in 2012, there were 260,000 cases of CGC (ASR 3.3 per 100,000) and 691,000 cases of NCGC (ASR 8.8) worldwide. The highest regional rates of both gastric cancer subsites were in Eastern/Southeastern Asia (in men, ASRs: 8.7 and 21.7 for CGC and NCGC, respectively). In most countries NCGC occurred more frequently than CGC with an average ratio of 2:1; however, in some populations where NCGC incidence rates were lower than the global average, CGC rates were similar or higher than NCGC rates. Men had higher rates than women for both subsites but particularly for CGC (male-to-female ratio 3:1). CONCLUSIONS: This study has, for the first time, quantified global incidence patterns of CGC and NCGC providing new insights into the global burden of these cancers. Country-specific estimates are provided; however, these should be interpreted with caution. This work will support future investigations across populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it