Childhood cancer incidence in Canada: demographic and geographic variation of temporal trends (1992–2010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surveillance of childhood cancer incidence trends can inform etiologic research, policy and programs. This study presents the first population-based report on demographic and geographic variations in incidence trends of detailed pediatric diagnostic groups in Canada. METHODS: The Canadian Cancer Registry data were used to calculate annual age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) from 1992 to 2010 among children less than 15 years of age by sex, age and region for the 12 main diagnostic groups and selected subgroups of the International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC), 3rd edition. Temporal trends were examined by annual percent changes (APCs) using Joinpoint regression. RESULTS: The ASIRs of childhood cancer among males increased by 0.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.2-0.9) annually from 1992 to 2010, whereas incidence among females increased by 3.2% (CI = 0.4-6.2) annually since 2004 after an initial stabilization. The largest overall increase was observed in children aged 1-4 years (APC = 0.9%, CI = 0.4-1.3). By region, the overall rates increased the most in Ontario from 2006 to 2010 (APC = 5.9%, CI = 1.9-10.1), and increased non-significantly in the other regions from 1992 to 2010. Average annual ASIRs for all cancers combined from 2006 to 2010 were lower in the Prairies (149.4 per million) and higher in Ontario (170.1 per million). The ASIRs increased for leukemias, melanoma, carcinoma, thyroid cancer, ependymomas and hepatoblastoma for all ages, and neuroblastoma in 1-4 year olds. Astrocytoma decreased in 10-14 year olds (APC = -2.1%, CI = -3.7 to -0.5), and among males (APC = -2.4%, CI = -4.6 to -0.2) and females (APC = -3.7%, CI = -5.8 to -1.6) in Ontario over the study period. CONCLUSION: Increasing incidence trends for all cancers and selected malignancies are consistent with those reported in other developed countries, and may reflect the changes in demographics and etiological exposures, and artefacts of changes in cancer coding, diagnosis and reporting. Significant decreasing trend for astrocytoma in late childhood was observed for the first time.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".