Epidemiology of prostate and kidney cancer in the Aboriginal population of Canada: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate and kidney cancer rates in the Aboriginal population of Canada is a growing issue. METHODS: A systematic review of prostate and kidney cancer epidemiology in the Aboriginal population of Canada was performed with international comparison and evaluation of present epidemiological disparities. PubMed, Medline, and Embase (from January 1946 to June 2016), relevant government-published reports, and the websites of organizations contributing to prostate or kidney cancer guidelines were searched. We included studies that informed any of the three epidemiological questions this review is focused on answering. RESULTS: Two systematic reviews, two meta-analyses, five literature reviews, and 21 single-study papers were included. The incidence and mortality rates of kidney cancer were elevated among Canadian Aboriginals when compared to the provincial or national population and to several international regions. No studies reported data on survival. Prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates were lower in Aboriginals provincially, nationally, and internationally, with incidence and survival reaching statistical significance. Elevated rate of risk factors for kidney cancer was a significant finding among Canadian Aboriginals. Aboriginals were screened for prostate cancer less than the general Canadian population, a trend also observed in the U.S. CONCLUSIONS: The elevated incidence and mortality of kidney cancer among Canadian Aboriginals is most likely attributable to the rise in lifestyle-based risk factors. Two correlations concerning prostate cancer are made. However, due to temporal and regional disparities in data, further investigation is required to elucidate these observations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".