An International Comparison of Breast Cancer Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Extending previous Canadian-United States cancer survival comparisons in large metropolitan areas, this study compares breast cancer survival in smaller metropolitan areas: Winnipeg, Manitoba and Des Moines, Iowa. METHODS: Manitoba and Iowa cancer registries, respectively, provided a total of 2,383 and 1,545 women with breast cancer (1984 to 1992, followed until December 31, 1997). Socioeconomic data for each person's residence at the time of diagnosis was taken from population censuses. RESULTS: Socioeconomic status and breast cancer survival were directly associated in the US cohort, but not in the Canadian cohort. Compared with similar patients in Des Moines, residents of the lowest fifth of income areas in Winnipeg experienced a significant 5-year survival advantage (survival rate ratio [SRR] = 1.14). In these lowest income areas, the Canadian survival advantage was larger among women aged 25 to 64 years (SRR = 1.23), and this was observed in the middle fifth of income areas among this younger cohort (SRR = 1.11). The Canadian survival advantage even seemed apparent in the poorest neighborhoods with relatively high representations of Aboriginal people (SRR = 1.16). CONCLUSION: This study replicated the finding of advantaged Canadian cancer survival in smaller metropolitan areas that had been consistently observed in larger metropolitan areas. Canada's single payer health care system seems to offer similar advantages across a number of diverse urban contexts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".