Cancer risk factors and screening in the off-reserve First Nations, Métis and non-Aboriginal populations of Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study describes the prevalence of smoking, obesity, sedentary behaviour/physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and alcohol use as well as the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening among First Nations and Métis adults in Ontario and compares these to that of the non-Aboriginal population. METHODS: We used the Canadian Community Health Survey (2007 to 2011 combined) to calculate prevalence estimates for the 3 ethnocultural populations. RESULTS: First Nations and Métis adults were significantly more likely than non-Aboriginal adults to self-report smoking and/or to be classified as obese. Alcohol use exceeding cancer prevention recommendations and inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption were more common in First Nations people than in the non-Aboriginal population. First Nations women were more likely to report having had a Fecal Occult Blood Test in the previous 2 years than non-Aboriginal women. No significant differences across the 3 ethnocultural groups were found for breast and cervical screening among women or colorectal screening among men. CONCLUSION: Without intervention, we are likely to continue to see a significant burden of smoking- and obesity-related cancers in Ontario's Aboriginal population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".