Further Insights Into Long-Term Trends in Relative Survival of Vulvar Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this article was to investigate the trends in relative survival in women diagnosed with invasive squamous cell vulvar cancer in the United States during the periods of 2004 to 2011 and to examine how these trends are associated with the stage of tumor at diagnosis. METHODS: We identified patients with primary invasive squamous cell vulvar cancer and recorded tumor stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry database. Women younger than 40 years were excluded because of small number of patients in this age group. A flexible parametric model was used to estimate 1- and 2-year relative survival ratios and excess mortality rate. RESULTS: In total, 4647 women were identified with invasive squamous cell vulvar cancer and known tumor stage in the data set. One- and two-year relative survival ratios increased over time for women with tumors staged I to III but it decreased for women with tumor staged IV. The excess mortality rate was much larger for stage IV compared to the other stages. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in relative survival ratio for invasive vulvar cancer patients have opposite directions depending on the stage of tumor. The mechanism of such behavior is not fully known and yet to be examined in future studies. However, this finding highlights the importance of early detection of preinvasive and early stage disease.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".