Colorectal Cancer Survival Disparities among Puerto Rican Hispanics: A Comparison to Racial/Ethnic Groups in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ethnic/racial disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival have been well documented. However, there is limited information regarding CRC survival among Hispanic subgroups. This study reports the 5-year relative survival of Puerto Rican Hispanic (PRH) CRC patients and the relative risk of death compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the US. METHODS: CRC incidence data from subjects ≥50 years was obtained from the Puerto Rico Central Cancer Registry and the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003. Relative survival rates were calculated using the life tables from the population of PR and SEER. A Poisson regression model was used to assess relative risk of death by stage, sex, and age. RESULTS: A total of 76,444 subjects with incident CRC were analyzed (non-Hispanic White (NHW) n=59,686; non-Hispanic black (NHB) n=7,700; US Hispanics (USH) n=5,699; PRH n=3,359). Overall and stage-specific five-year survival rates differed by race/ethnicity. When comparing PRH to the other racial/ethnic groups, PRH had the lowest survival rates in regional cancers and were the only racial/ethnic group where a marked 5-year survival advantage was observed among females (66.0%) compared to males (60.3%). A comparable and significantly higher relative risk of death of CRC was observed for PRH and NHB compared to NHW. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings establish baseline CRC survival data for PRH living in Puerto Rico. The gender and racial/ethnic disparities observed in PRH compared to US mainland racial/ethnic groups warrant further investigation of the risk factors affecting this Hispanic subgroup.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".