Cancer Survival Disparities Between First Nation and Non-Aboriginal Adults in Canada: Follow-up of the 1991 Census Mortality Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of cancer among indigenous people in Canada has been understudied due to a lack of ethnic identifiers in cancer registries. We compared cancer survival among First Nations to that among non-Aboriginal adults in Canada in the first national study of its kind to date. METHODS: A population-based cohort of approximately 2 million respondents to the 1991 Canadian Long Form Census was followed for cancer diagnoses and deaths using probabilistic linkage to cancer and death registries until 2009. Excess mortality rate ratios (EMRR) and 5-year age-standardized relative survival rates were calculated for 15 cancers using age, sex, ethnicity, and calendar-time-specific life tables derived from the cohort at large. RESULTS: First Nations diagnosed with cancers of the colon and rectum, lung and bronchus, breast, prostate, oral cavity and pharynx, cervix, ovary, or with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia all had significantly poorer 5-year survival than their non-Aboriginal peers. For colorectal cancer, a significant disparity was only present between 2001 and 2009 (EMRR: 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80). For prostate cancer, a significant disparity was only present between 1992 and 2000 (EMRR: 2.76; 95% CI, 1.81-4.21). Adjusting for income and rurality had little impact on the EMRRs. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-Aboriginals, First Nations people had poorer survival for 14 of 15 of the most common cancers, and disparities could not be explained by income and rurality. IMPACT: The results of this study can serve as a benchmark for monitoring progress toward narrowing the gap in survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 145-51. ©2016 AACR.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".