Breast cancer mortality trends in the WEST compared to the EAST: lives gained, lives lost.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract #6082 INTRODUCTION: Breast Cancer (BrCa) Mortality trends between 1950 – 2005 were reviewed between the Western (WEST) and Eastern Asian (EAST) countries, with the objective to gain understanding between therapeutic and diagnostic interventions and underlying epidemiology factors determining BrCa outcomes. METHODOLOGY: We compared BrCa mortality trends in the WEST (Canada, UK, USA) and in the EAST (Japan and China-Shanghai). Data were obtained from WHO - IARC, Lyon (Canada, USA, UK, Japan); and from the Shanghai Cancer Registry (China-Shanghai). We analyzed age-standardized annual mortality rates per 100,000 / population (as per 1960 world standard population). Mortality trends were expressed relative to the baseline (year 1950 for all, year 1973 for China-Sha). RESULTS: The baseline mortality rates were: 22.5 for Canada; 23.5 for UK; 21.6 for USA, 4.1 for Japan; and 7.3 for China-Shanghai. CONCLUSION. These data confirm a substantial mortality reduction in the WEST evident after the 1980's - 1990's, likely reflecting the interaction of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (mammography, education, systemic / locoregional therapies, etc). The different timing and extent of mortality reduction in the WEST probably reflect different degree of implementation of the interactive factors. On the other hand, mortality is increasing in the EAST, in parallel with the “westernization” of those regions (industrialization, diet, etc, Ref. [NEJM; 2008:358;3)]. For the EAST, our data also support a correlation between the timing / extent of the “westernization” and mortality trend dynamics (i.e. mortality increase in Japan 20 years earlier than China). Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6082.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".