Global trends in colorectal cancer mortality: projections to the year 2035
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Predictions of the future burden of the disease inform health planners and raise awareness of the need for cancer control action. Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) mortality database for 1989-2016 were used to project colon and rectal cancer mortality rates and number of deaths in 42 countries up to the year 2035, using age-period-cohort (APC) modelling. Mortality rates for colon cancer are predicted to continue decreasing in the majority of included countries from Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania, except Latin America and Caribbean countries. Mortality rates from rectal cancer in general followed those of colon cancer, however rates are predicted to increase substantially in Costa Rica (+73.6%), Australia (+59.2%), United States (+27.8%), Ireland (+24.2%) and Canada (+24.1%). Despite heterogeneous trends in rates, the number of deaths is expected to rise in all countries for both colon and rectal cancer by 60.0% and 71.5% until 2035, respectively, due to population growth and ageing. Reductions in colon and rectal cancer mortality rates are probably due to better accessibility to early detection services and improved specialized care. The expected increase in rectal cancer mortality rates in some countries is worrisome and warrants further investigations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it