MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914983882 · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000000025

Global, Regional and National Burden of Bladder Cancer, 1990 to 2016: Results from the GBD Study 2016

2019· article· en· W2914983882 on OpenAlexaff
Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Erfan Amini, Farhad Pishgar, Sahar Saeedi Moghaddam, Behnam Nabavizadeh, Yasna Rostam‐Abadi, Arya Aminorroaya, Christina Fitzmaurice, Farshad Farzadfar, Mohammad Reza Nowroozi, Peter C. Black, Siamak Daneshmand

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerLife expectancyYears of potential life lostCancerIncidence (geometry)Disease burdenMortality rateBurden of diseaseDemographyStandardized mortality ratioDiseaseGerontologyInternal medicinePopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Bladder cancer is among the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Data on the bladder cancer burden are valuable for policy-making. We aimed to estimate the burden of bladder cancer by country, age group, gender and sociodemographic status between 1990 and 2016. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from vital registration systems and cancer registries were the input to estimate the bladder cancer burden. Mortality was estimated in an ensemble model approach, incidence was estimated by dividing mortality by the mortality-to-incidence ratio and prevalence was estimated using the mortality-to-incidence ratio as a surrogate for survival. We modeled the years lived with disability using disability weights of bladder cancer sequelae. Years of life lost were calculated by multiplying the number of deaths by age by the standard life expectancy at that age. Disability adjusted life-years were calculated by summing the years lived with disability and the years of life lost. Moreover, we also estimated the burden attributable to bladder cancer risk factors, smoking and high fasting plasma glucose using the comparative risk assessment framework of the Global Burden of Disease study. RESULTS: In 2016 there were 437,442 incident cases (95% UI 426,709-447,912) of bladder cancer with an age standardized incidence rate of 6.69/100,000 (95% UI 6.52-6.85). Bladder cancer led to 186,199 deaths (95% UI 180,453-191,686) in 2016 with an age standardized rate of 2.94/100,000 (95% UI 2.85-3.03). Bladder cancer was responsible for 3,315,186 disability adjusted life-years (95% UI 3,193,248-3,425,530) in 2016 with an age standardized rate of 49.45/100,000 (95% UI 47.68-51.11). Of bladder cancer deaths 26.84% (95% UI 19.78-33.91) and 7.29% (95% UI 1.49-16.19) were due to smoking and high fasting glucose, respectively, in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of bladder cancer incident cases is growing globally, the age standardized incidence and number of deaths are decreasing, as mirrored by a decreasing smoking contribution.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations120
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207