MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2480823485 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2016-1768

Abstract 1768: Racial/ethnic differences in endometrioid endometrial cancer survival among cases identified through the National Cancer Database

2016· article· en· W2480823485 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Beckmeyer-Borowko, Caryn E. Peterson, Katherine C. Brewer, Mary O. Otoo, Faith G. Davis, Kent Hoskins, Charlotte E. Joslin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazard ratioMedicineEthnic groupPacific islandersConfidence intervalDemographyEndometrial cancerProportional hazards modelCancerGerontologyInternal medicinePopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract OBJECTIVES: Past research suggests that at the local level, Non-Hispanic whites (NHW) have better survival when diagnosed with endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) than non-Hispanic blacks (NHB), Hispanics, and American Indians; however, little is known about survival differences at a national level and among other minorities. This study examined whether racial and ethnic differences in 5-year survival are present in U.S. women (NHW, NHB, Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians (NHA), non-Hispanic Pacific Islanders/Hawaiians (NHPI), non-Hispanic American Indians/Aleutians or Eskimos (NHAI/AN) and non-Hispanics Others (NHO). METHODS: EEC cases from the National Cancer Database were analyzed to evaluate racial/ethnic differences in 5-year survival among women diagnosed with EEC between 1998 and 2007. Chi-Square test was used to examine whether differences in demographic, clinical, institutional, and treatment variables varied by race/ethnicity. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were fit to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) between race/ethnicity and survival. RESULTS: A total of 178,310 women were diagnosed with EEC between 1998 and 2007. Of these; 74.8% were NHW, 8.3% were NHB, 13.9% were Hispanic, 1.8% were NHA, 0.2% were NHPI, 0.2% were NHAI/AN and 0.8% were NHO. Adjusting for covariates, NHB (HR = 1.29; 95%CI 1.24-1.34) and NHPI (HR = 1.59; 95%CI 1.50-1.67) had poorer survival than NHW. Yet results show that NHA (HR = 0.83; 95%CI 0.74-0.92) and NHO (HR = 0.81; 95%CI 0.69-0.94) had a better survival when compared to NHW. No survival differences were detected between Hispanics, NHAI/AN and NHW. CONCLUSIONS: Results identify racial/ethnic differences in 5-year survival among women diagnosed with EEC cancer in the U.S. between 1998 and 2007. NHA and NHO had a better and NHB and NHPI had a poorer survival when compared to NHW. Citation Format: Anna B. Beckmeyer-Borowko, Caryn E. Peterson, Katherine C. Brewer, Mary O. Otoo, Faith G. Davis, Kent F. Hoskins, Charlotte E. Joslin. Racial/ethnic differences in endometrioid endometrial cancer survival among cases identified through the National Cancer Database. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 1768.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.095 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→