The 3 <sup>rd</sup> International Cancer Control Congress: international collaboration in an era of cancer as a global concern
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2002, there were 10.9 million new cancer cases in the world; 6.7 million deaths were due to cancer 1 . Cancer incidence (new cases) rises each year due to population growth and aging. Overall, five year survival rates vary from less than 15% to greater than 60% across nations 2 . Although improvements in mortality from cancer are tak ing place, they do not offset the increase in incidence. Hence, each year, more people will develop cancer, more will die of cancer, and more will be survivors of cancer ‐ the burden (personnel, community and socio-economic) will continue, inexorably, to in crease. If the cancer issue is to be addressed, the interventions must be directed at the process of cancer, not solely to the disease. Thus, cancer control must address inci dence through primordial and primary prevention, detection of curable, asympto matic, early stage disease, effective treatment programs for established disease, and palliative, supportive and end-of-life care to meet the needs of those cured and those whose death requires dignity, symptom control and compassion. To be effective, can cer control plans must be directed to the entire population (the healthy, high-risk, ill, cured and dying), recognizing that disparities of access, circumstances, gender, eth nicity and social well-being exist in all populations. Population-based cancer control plans require a vision of what is to be achieved, principles that will characterize the intents and expectations, and a process for adapt ing plans to align with the contextual realities of the nation/country from cultural, political and resource perspectives. Consideration must be given to the extent that cancer control plans are specific to cancer, or whether they are integrated into strate gies that address many non-communicable diseases [NCDs], given the common risk factors across NCDs and the overlap of principles underlying disease control plans. Finally, all plans must consider the content, the implementation process, the ‘stake holders’ (government, non-government organizations [NGOs], foundations, profes sionals, patients, public and the private sector) and their roles and relationships, and the timeframe over which plans will be enacted. To control the process of NCDs, in cluding cancer, requires collaboration, relationships and ‘partnerships’ ‐ it cannot be achieved solely by discrete organizations, institutions, or disciplines. Given the diver sity and disparity across populations and the rising cancer/NCD burden that will face all, common purpose, collaboration, knowledge transfer and rational action must characterize the way forward. The purpose of the 3 rd International Cancer Control Congress (ICCC-3) was to promote and foster a global community of practice through enabling extensive participation and dialogue between countries and societies with wide and varying experiences in cancer control; building on and synergizing ongoing work by governments, NGOs, international organizations and patient and public groups to make sustainable cancer control an important global priority. The ICCC-3 was held in Cernobbio, Italy in November 2009, and was built upon the achievements of the ICCC-1 (Vancouver, 2005) and ICCC-2 (Rio de Janeiro, 2007) by ensuring an agenda that focused on: international collaboration; establishment of sustainable na tional/large population cancer control strategies; promoting broad cross-sectoral participation (e.g., governments, cancer organizations, foundations, non-govern
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it