Survival from cancer--up-to-date predictions using period analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This period analysis provides Canadian predictions of the short- and long-term relative survival of people recently diagnosed with cancer. Long-term period and cohort-based estimates are also compared. DATA SOURCES: Data are from the Canadian Cancer Registry, the Canadian Mortality Data Base, and Statistics Canada life tables. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Relative survival analyses were conducted using the life-table method; expected survival proportions were derived using the Ederer II approach. Period analysis estimates were based on the survival experience of cancer cases followed up in 2002. The cohort analyses involved people diagnosed in 1997 (5-year survival) or 1992 (10-year survival). National estimates exclude Quebec. MAIN RESULTS: Relative survival ratios were highest for thyroid (5-year, 97.7%) and prostate (95.2%) cancer and lowest for pancreatic cancer. Survival for many forms of cancer is higher than previously estimated by cohort-based analysis. The largest increases in 10-year relative survival were predicted for cancers of the prostate (13.0%) and rectum (9.7%). The largest predicted increases for 5-year survival were for cancers of the cervix uteri (5.4%) and rectum (4.5%), and for leukemia (3.7%).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".