MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899001777 · doi:10.1186/s13104-018-3890-8

Incidence of chronic myeloid leukemia in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

2018· article· en· W2899001777 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leonard T. Nguyen, Maggie Guo, Christopher Naugler, Fariborz Rashid-Kolvear

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Myeloid leukemiaMedicineGerontologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The epidemiology of chronic myeloid leukemia is shifting due to the aging global population and the recent discovery and availability of targeted treatment options. This study provides recent data regarding the incidence of CML in Calgary, a major Canadian city. Data from patients diagnosed with CML by bone marrow sample analysis from 2011 to 2015 were collected from the database of the sole centralized cytogenetics facility in service of Calgary and its surrounding area. RESULTS: With an average of 10.2 newly diagnosed cases per year in Calgary from 2011 to 2015, the incidence rate was calculated to be 0.75 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 0.57-0.99). With age standardization, the incidence was 0.87 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 0.82-0.91) for the Canadian population, which was low compared to other developed Western nations. The highest incidence rates were observed in the older patient categories, however there was a broad age distribution for incident cases and the median age at diagnosis was 48. There was a general male bias for CML most pronounced at the younger ages. Our description of CML incidence will help to inform healthcare planners amidst the dramatically altered treatment of this hematological neoplasm.

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)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Research NotesSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207