MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805609609

Characteristics of and differences between Pasifika women and New Zealand European women diagnosed with breast cancer in New Zealand.

2017· article· en· W2805609609 on OpenAlexaff
Charis Brown, Chunhuan Lao, Ross Lawrenson, Sandar Tin Tin, Michelle Schaaf, Jacquie Kidd, Anne Allan-Moetaua, Josephine Herman, Reena Raamsroop, Ian Campbell, Mark Elwood

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerLogistic regressionDemographyIncidence (geometry)OddsCancerStage (stratigraphy)GynecologyOncologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Breast cancer in New Zealand-based Pasifika women is a significant issue. Although Pasifika women have a lower incidence of breast cancer compared to New Zealand European women, they have higher breast cancer mortality and lower five-year survival. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and tumour biology of Pasifika women and to compare New Zealand European women to identify what factors impact on early (Stage 1 and 2) vs advanced stage (Stage 3 and 4) at diagnosis. METHOD: Data on all Pasifika and New Zealand European women diagnosed with breast cancer (C50) during the period 1 June 2000 to 31 May 2013 was extracted from the Auckland and Waikato Breast Cancer Registries. Descriptive tables and Chi-square test were used to examine differences in characteristics and tumour biology between Pasifika and New Zealand European women. Logistic regression was used to identify factors that contributed to an increased risk of advanced stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of Pasifika women had advanced disease at diagnosis compared to New Zealand European women (33.3% and 18.3%, respectively). Cancer biology in Pasifika women was more likely to be: 1) HER2+, 2) ER/PR negative and 3) have a tumour size of ≥50mm. Pasifika women live in higher deprivation areas of 9-10 compared to New Zealand European women (55% vs 14%, respectively) and were less likely to have their cancer identified through screening. Logistic regression showed that if Pasifika women were on the screen-detected pathway they had similar odds (not sig.) of having advanced disease at diagnosis to New Zealand European women. CONCLUSION: Mode of detection, deprivation, age and some biological factors contributed to the difference in odds ratio between Pasifika and New Zealand European women. For those of screening age, adherence to the screening programme and improvements in access to earlier diagnosis for Pasifika women under the current screening age have the potential to make a substantial difference in the number of Pasifika women presenting with late-stage disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207