Bayesian approach to predicting cancer incidence for an area without cancer registration by using cancer incidence data from nearby areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares three different methods for performing cancer incidence prediction in an area without a cancer registry under a Bayesian framework, using linear and log-linear age-period models with either age-specific slopes or a common slope across age groups. The three methods assume that a nearby area with a cancer registration has similar incidence and mortality patterns as the area of interest without a cancer registry where the cancer incidence prediction is carried out. The three methods differ in modeling strategies: (i) modeling the incidence rate directly; (ii) modeling the ratio of the number of incident cases to that of mortality cases; and (iii) modeling the difference between the incidence rate and the mortality rate. Strategy (iii) is a new approach in this type of projection. Empirical assessment is made using real data from the cancer registry of Tarragona, Spain, to predict cancer incidence in Girona, Spain, and vice versa. Predictions of short-term (3-4 years) incidence were made for 2001 in Tarragona using observed cancer incidence and mortality data for 1994-1998 from Girona. Short-term predictions were made for 2002 in Girona using Tarragona's 1994-1998 data. Additionally, long-term (10 years) incidence rate predictions were made for 2002 in Girona using data from Tarragona for the period 1985-1992. Our results suggest that extrapolating time-trends of incidence rates minus mortality rates may have the best predictive performance overall. These methods of population-level disease-incidence prediction are highly relevant to health care planning and policy decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".