Second malignancies among survivors of germ‐cell testicular cancer: A pooled analysis between 13 cancer registries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the risk of second malignancies among 29,511 survivors of germ-cell testicular cancer recorded in 13 cancer registries. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were estimated comparing the observed numbers of second malignancies with the expected numbers obtained from sex-, age-, period- and population-specific incidence rates. Seminomas and nonseminomas, the 2 main histological groups of testicular cancer, were analyzed separately. During a median follow-up period of 8.3 years (0-35 years), we observed 1,811 second tumors, with a corresponding SIR of 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-1.73). Statistically significant increased risks were found for fifteen cancer types, including SIRs of 2.0 or higher for cancers of the stomach, gallbladder and bile ducts, pancreas, bladder, kidney, thyroid, and for soft-tissue sarcoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer and myeloid leukemia. The SIR for myeloid leukemia was 2.39 (95% CI: 1.41-3.77) after seminomas, and 6.77 (95% CI: 4.14-10.5) after nonseminomas. It increased to 37.9 (95% CI: 18.9-67.8; based on 11 observed cases of leukemia) among nonseminoma patients diagnosed since 1990. SIRs for most solid cancers increased with follow-up duration, whereas they did not change with year of testicular cancer diagnosis. Among subjects diagnosed before 1980, 20 year survivors of seminoma had a cumulative risk of solid cancer of 9.6% (95% CI: 8.7-10.5%) vs. 6.5% expected, whereas 20 years survivors of nonseminoma had a risk of 5.0% (95% CI: 4.2-6.0%) vs. 3.1% expected. In conclusion, survivors of testicular cancers have an increased risk of several second primaries, where the effect of the treatment seems to play a major role.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it