MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894081536 · doi:10.1200/jgo.18.61300

Collection and Reporting of National Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Data in Australia (STaR Project)

2018· article· en· W2894081536 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerCancer registryStage (stratigraphy)PopulationOncologyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stage at diagnosis is an important prognostic factor for cancer, providing contextual information for interpreting population health indicators such as mortality from cancer and cancer survival. Australian population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) routinely collect information on cancer incidence and mortality. The need for high quality, comprehensive national data on stage at diagnosis to supplement these data are widely recognized in Australia. The collection and dissemination of quality national stage data will enhance the: • ability to better monitor cancer outcomes, inform cancer control policy; • understand variations across different populations; and • identify where further research and targeted strategies may be required to improve cancer outcomes. Linking data on cancer stage at diagnosis with other administrative cancer data will also allow for a better understanding of the relationship between stage at diagnosis, treatments received, patterns of cancer recurrence, and survival outcomes. Aim: To strengthen national data capacity by collecting and reporting cancer stage at diagnosis for Cancer Australia's Stage, Treatment and Recurrence (STaR) project. Methods: Working with state and territory population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) and the Australian Pediatric Cancer Registry, Cancer Australia supported the development and testing of Business Rules for the collection of national cancer stage at diagnosis for: • The top 5 incident cancers based on the Tumor, Node, and Metastasis (TNM) staging system. These rules were endorsed by the Australasian Association of Cancer Registries (AACR) as a national standard in May 2016; and • Childhood cancers, with a separate set of Business Rules for 16 childhood cancer types based on the Toronto Pediatric Cancer Stage Guidelines. These rules were supported by the AACR as a national standard. Results: Using the AACR-endorsed Business Rules, comprehensive national cancer stage at diagnosis data for the top 5 incident cancers (for 2011) have been collected in Australia for the first time. Over 90% of incidence cases were able to be assigned a value for registry-derived (RD) stage at diagnosis for melanoma (97%), prostate (97%), and female breast (94%) cancers. Lower staging completeness was found for colorectal cancers (88%), and for lung cancers (72%). Business Rules for the collection of stage at diagnosis data for pediatric cancers have also been developed; 93% of sample cases diagnosed in the period 2006-2010 were able to be staged, ranging from 84% for nonrhabdomyosarcoma to 100% for hepatoblastoma. Conclusion: The Business Rules enabled the uniform collection of cancer stage at diagnosis data for the first time in Australia. The collection of these data will allow for the linkage of stage at diagnosis to other sources of information, including patterns of treatments applied, and enable reporting of survival and recurrence outcomes by stage.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.159 · 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