Racial Disparities in Colorectal Carcinoma Incidence, Severity and Survival Times Over 10 Years: A Retrospective Single Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Although studies have been performed on malignancy behavior in African Americans and Caucasians, scant data are present on other minority racial groups. METHODS: A retrospective single center study was performed where 1,860 patient charts with a diagnosis of CRC from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014 were reviewed. Data collected on each patient included age, gender, ethnicity, primary site and histological stage at the time of diagnosis. Survival time over the course of 5 years was documented for patients from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2009. Comparisons were made amongst different racial groups for the above mentioned factors. RESULTS: Study population consisted of 27.09% African Americans, 65.61% Caucasians, 3.86% Hispanics, 0.54% South Asians, 1.03% Arabs, 0.54% Asians and 0.22% American Indians. Mean age of CRC presentation was found to be significantly different (P < 0.05) between the three largest racial groups: 71 years for Caucasians, 69 years for African Americans, and 61 years for Hispanics. African Americans (27.09%) and Hispanics (28.79%) presented predominantly at stage IV in comparison to other racial groups. Caucasians presented predominantly at stage III (24.84%). The rectum was the most common site of CRC across all racial groups with the exception of Asians, where sigmoid colon was the predominant site (30%). Adenocarcinoma remained the predominant cancer type in all groups. Hispanics had relatively higher incidence rate of carcinoid tumor (12.68%). Survival time analysis showed that Caucasians tend to have better survival probability over 5 years after initial diagnosis as compared to African Americans and Hispanic (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is lack of studies performed on minority racial groups in North America. Our study highlighted some important clinical differences of CRC presentation in different racial groups which are not well studied and can be used to formulate future multi-center studies to assess disease behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".