MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416021583

Cancer prevalence and education by cancer site: logistic regression analysis.

2010· article· en· W2416021583 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Johnson, Martin Corsten, James Ted McDonald, Michael K. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyLogistic regressionCancerHumanitiesPhilosophyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previously, using the American National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and a logistic regression analysis, we found that upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancer is correlated with low socioeconomic status (SES). The objective of this study was to determine if this correlation between low SES and cancer prevalence exists for other cancers. METHODS: We again used the NHIS and employed education level as our main measure of SES. We controlled for potentially confounding factors, including smoking status and alcohol consumption. RESULTS: We found that only two cancer subsites shared the pattern of increased prevalence with low education level and decreased prevalence with high education level: UADT cancer and cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: UADT cancer and cervical cancer were the only two cancers identified that had a link between prevalence and lower education level. This raises the possibility that an associated risk factor for the two cancers is causing the relationship between lower education level and prevalence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207