Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research in the United States and Europe has found that women have an advantage over men in surviving a diagnosis of cancer, but the issue has not been systematically studied in Canada. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from the Canadian Cancer Registry, with mortality follow-up through record linkage to the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database. The percentage unit difference in five-year relative survival ratios (RSRs) between women and men and the relative excess risk (RER) of death for women compared with men were used as measures of differences in cancer survival. RESULTS: A significant advantage for women compared with men was observed in 13 of the 18 cancers studied. Point estimates of RER were almost uniformly lower among those diagnosed at younger ages (15 to 54). For all cancers combined, women had a 13% lower excess risk of death-23% lower among women younger than 55. The overall advantage was greatest for thyroid cancer (RER = 0.31), skin melanoma (0.52) and Hodgkin lymphoma (0.65). The advantage for thyroid cancer was somewhat attenuated, though still significant, in earlier time periods. Bladder cancer was the only cancer for which women had a significant disadvantage (RER = 1.23); this excess risk seemed to be restricted to the first 12 to 18 months after diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: The reasons behind sex-specific differences in cancer survival are not well understood. Many explanations are possible, and differences are best explored on a cancer-by-cancer basis. The pronounced advantage for women at younger ages lends indirect support to a hypothesized hormonal influence.
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".