Trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Canada during the era of prostate-specific antigen screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to screen for prostate cancer began in the early 1990s. Advocates for screening assert that this has caused a decrease in prostate cancer mortality. We sought to describe secular changes in prostate cancer incidence and mortality in Canada in relation to the onset of PSA screening. METHODS: Age-standardized and age-specific prostate cancer incidence (1969-2007) and mortality (1969-2009) from Public Health Agency of Canada databases were analyzed by joinpoint regression. Changes in incidence and mortality were related to introduction of PSA screening. RESULTS: Prior to PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence increased from 54.2 to 99.8 per 100 000 between 1969 and 1990. Thereafter, incidence increased sharply (12.8% per year) to peak at 140.8/100 000 in 1993. After decreasing in all age groups between 1993 and 1996, incidence continued to increase for men aged less than 70 years, but decreased for older men. Age-standardized mortality was stable from 1969 to 1977, increased 1.4% per year to peak in 1995 and subsequently decreased at 3.3% per year; the decline started from 1987 in younger men (age < 60 yr). INTERPRETATION: Incidence was increasing before PSA screening occurred, but rose further after it was introduced. Reductions in prostate cancer mortality began before PSA screening was widely used and were larger than could be anticipated from screening alone. These findings suggest that screening caused artifactual increase in incidence, but no more than a part of reductions in prostate cancer mortality. The reduction may be due to changing treatment or certification of death.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".