Comparison of cancer survival trends in the United States of adolescents and young adults with those in children and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With prior reports indicating a lack of progress in survival improvement in older adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15 to 39 years with cancer compared with both younger and older patients with cancer, the current analysis provides an update of survival trends of cancers among AYAs, children, and older adults. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 13 regions were used to ascertain survival trends of the 34 most frequent cancers diagnosed in AYAs compared with children and older adults. RESULTS: As of 2002 through 2006, the 5-year relative survival rate for all invasive cancers in AYAs was 82.5% (standard error, 0.2%). In AYAs, 14 cancers demonstrated evidence of a statistically significant improvement in their 5-year relative survival since 1992. Survival improved less in AYAs than in children for acute myeloid leukemia and medulloblastoma. Fourteen cancers had survival improvements that were found to be less in AYAs compared with older adults, including hepatic carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, high-grade astrocytoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia, pancreatic carcinoma, low-grade astrocytoma, gastric carcinoma, renal carcinoma, cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx, Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian cancer, fibromatous sarcoma, other soft tissue sarcoma, and thyroid carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in the survival of several cancer types that occur frequently in AYAs are encouraging. However, survival does not appear to be improving to the same extent in AYAs as in children or older adults for several cancers. Further investment in exploring the distinct biology of tumors in this age group, and of their hosts, must be a priority in AYA oncology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".