MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2140492821 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.141432

A comparison of the stages at which cancer is diagnosed in physicians and in the general population in Taiwan

2015· article· en· W2140492821 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yueh-Han Hsu, Pei‐Tseng Kung, Yueh‐Hsin Wang, Yao-Mao Chang, Wen‐Chen Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancer registryCancerPropensity score matchingFamily medicinePopulationLogistic regressionMultinomial logistic regressionHealth careInternal medicineDemographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous investigations have reported that physicians tend to neglect their own health care; however, they may also use their professional knowledge and networks to engage in healthier lifestyles or seek prompt health services. We sought to determine whether the stage at which cancer is diagnosed differs between physicians and nonphysicians. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide matched cohort study over a period of 14 years in Taiwan. We accessed data from two national databases: the National Health Insurance Research Database and the Taiwan Cancer Registry File. We collected data on all patients with the 6 most common cancers in Taiwan (hepatoma, lung, colorectal, oral, female breast and cervical cancer) from 1999 to 2012. We excluded patients less than 25 years of age, as well as those with a history of organ transplantation, cancer or AIDS. We used propensity score matching for age, sex, residence and income to select members for the control (nonphysicians) and experimental (physicians) groups at a 5:1 ratio. We used χ(2) tests to analyze the distribution of incident cancer stages among physicians and nonphysicians. We compared these associations using multinomial logistic regression. We performed sensitivity analyses for subgroups of doctors and cancers. RESULTS: We identified 274,003 patients with cancer, 542 of whom were physicians. After propensity score matching, we assigned 536 physicians to the experimental group and 2680 nonphysicians to the control group. We found no significant differences in cancer stage distributions between physicians and controls. Multinomial logistic regression and sensitivity analyses showed similar cancer stages in most scenarios; however, physicians had 2.64-fold higher risk of having stage IV cancer at diagnosis in cases of female breast and cervical cancer. INTERPRETATION: In this cohort of physicians in Taiwan, cancer was not diagnosed at earlier stages than in nonphysicians, with the exception of stage IV cancer of the cervix and female breast.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→