MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419421680

Cancer incidence and mortality in Asian Indians: a review of literature from the United States, South Asia, and beyond.

2005· review· en· W2419421680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hozefa A. Divan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)CancerDemographyCervical cancerMortality ratePopulationCancer incidenceMedicineSouth asiaGeographyEnvironmental healthHistoryEthnologyInternal medicineSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for future research and awareness activities in the United States. METHODS: The current literature in the English language on cancer incidence and mortality among Asian Indians was reviewed. RESULTS: Asian Indians comprise 89% of the U.S. South Asian population. There are few studies in the United States or Canada on cancer incidence or mortality. In India, oral and cervical cancers have high incidence and mortality rates, but the rates of cancers common in the West are rising. In Great Britain, cancer rates in the South Asian community are similar to those of their non-Asian counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer incidence and mortality rates in India and Great Britain provide a foundation for scientific inquiry among this population in the United States, but more data is needed to assess the cancer burden and implement cancer prevention activities in this country.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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