Cervical cancer mortality by neighbourhood income in urban Canada from 1971 to 1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The reduction of socioeconomic inequalities in health is an explicit objective of health policy in Canada, yet rates of death from cervical cancer are known to be higher among women of low socioeconomic status than among those of higher socioeconomic status. To evaluate progress toward the World Health Organization's goal of "Health for All," we examined whether income-related differentials in cervical cancer mortality diminished from 1971 to 1996. METHODS: Death registration data for Canada's census metropolitan areas in 1971, 1986, 1991 and 1996 were assigned to census tracts through postal code, and the tracts were in turn assigned to income quintiles based on their proportion of the population below the Statistics Canada low-income cutoff values. We compared age-standardized death rates (using the 1966 world population standard) in the female population (excluding those in institutions) across the 5 income quintiles and calculated interquintile rate ratios (poorest over richest) and interquintile rate differences (poorest minus richest). RESULTS: From 1971 to 1996, the overall age-standardized cervical cancer death rate per 100 000 women (and 95% confidence interval) declined from 5.0 (4.5-5.6) to 1.9 (1.7-2.1), the interquintile rate ratio diminished from 2.7 (1.8-4.2) to 1.7 (1.1- 2.6), and the interquintile rate difference decreased from 4.6 (2.8- 6.4) to 1.1 (0.2-1.9). INTERPRETATION: The income-related disparity in rates of death from cervical cancer as measured by rate ratios and rate differences diminished markedly in urban Canada from 1971 to 1996. Among the numerous factors that may have contributed to the decline (including decline in fertility and improvement in diet), one important factor was probably the implementation of effective screening programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".