Sex differences in lung cancer survival: long-term trends using population-based cancer registry data in Osaka, Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several studies of sex differences in lung cancer survival have been reported. However, large-size population-based studies based on long-term observation are scarce. We investigated long-term trends in sex differences in lung cancer survival using population-based cancer registry data from Osaka, Japan. METHODS: We analyzed 79 330 cases from the Osaka Cancer Registry (OCR) diagnosed between 1975 and 2007. We calculated 5-year relative survival in the six periods (1975-1980, 1981-1986, 1987-1992, 1993-1997, 1998-2002 and 2003-2007). To estimate the trends in sex differences in lung cancer survival throughout the study period, we applied a multivariate excess hazard model to control for confounders. RESULTS: The proportion of adenocarcinoma (ADC) and 5-year relative relative survival have increased for both sexes. Sex differences in lung cancer survival have widened over the period, especially in ADC and since the late 1990s. The excess hazard ratio of death within 5 years for males was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.16-1.21), adjusting for period at diagnosis, histologic type, stage, age group and treatment. CONCLUSION: We reported that females have better prognosis in lung cancer than males and the sex differences in lung cancer survival have become wider in Osaka, Japan. This can be partly explained by the sex differences in the proportions of histologic type and stage. Further studies considering other factors that influence sex differences in lung cancer survival are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".