The Descriptive Epidemiology of Female Breast Cancer: An International Comparison of Incidence, Survival and Mortality.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: we present the latest international descriptive epidemiological data for invasive breast cancer amongst women, including incidence, survival and mortality in the worldwide. METHODS: the incidence and mortality statistics presented here for cancers worldwide were taken from the International Agency for Research on Cancer: the Cancer Incidence in five Continents Vol IX. GLOBOCAN database, presented on may 2011. The datas of Cancer survival are taken from:Cancer survival in five continents, a worldwide population-based study. Africa is presented by (Setif)Algeria. The Cancer survival in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Central America (SurvCan). RESULTS: breast cancer is by far the most frequent cancer among women with an estimated 1.38 million new cancer cases diagnosed in 2008 It is now the most common cancer both in developed and developing regions with around 690 000 new cases. The more favorable survival of breast cancer in (high-incidence) developed regions. As a result, breast cancer ranks as the fifth cause of death from cancer overall (458 000 deaths), but it is still the most frequent cause of cancer death in women in both developing (269 000 deaths, 12.7% of total) and developed regions, where the estimated 189 000 deaths. Five-year relative survival estimates range from 12% in parts of Africa to almost 90% in the United States, Australia and Canada. In Saoudi Arabia the relative survival probabilities at one, three and five years from the incidence datas were 96%, 83% and 65%, respectively. With the differential linked to a combination of early detection, access to treatment services and cultural barriers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".