MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964052503 · doi:10.1200/jgo.18.00160

Sociodemographic Factors and Stage of Cancer at Diagnosis: A Population-Based Study in South India

2019· article· en· W2964052503 on OpenAlexaff
Aleyamma Mathew, Preethi Sara George, Kunnambath Ramadas, Beela Sarah Mathew, Aswin Kumar, Krishnan Nair Lalithamma Jayakumar, Christopher M. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervixBreast cancerCancer registryCervical cancerStage (stratigraphy)Socioeconomic statusCancerLung cancerPopulationGynecologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Lower socioeconomic status is associated with inferior cancer survival in high-income countries, but whether this applies to low- and middle-income countries is not well described. Here, we use a population-based cancer registry to explore the association between educational level and stage of cancer at diagnosis in South India. METHODS We used the Trivandrum District population-based cancer registry to identify all cases of breast and cervical cancer (women) and oral cavity (OC) and lung cancer (men) who were diagnosed from 2012 to 2014. Educational status—classified as illiterate/primary school, middle school, or secondary school or higher—was the primary exposure of interest. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with advanced stage disease at diagnosis defined as stage III and IV (breast, cervix, or OC) or regional/metastatic (lung). RESULTS The study population included 4,547 patients with breast (n = 2,283), cervix (n = 481), OC (n = 797), and lung (n = 986) cancer. Educational status was 22%, 19%, and 26% for illiterate/primary, middle, and secondary school or higher, respectively. Educational status was missing for 33% of patients. The proportion of all patients with advanced stage disease was 37% (breast), 39% (cervix), 67% (OC), and 88% (lung). Patients with illiterate/primary school educational status were considerably more likely to have advanced breast cancer (50% v 39% v 36%; P < .001), cervix cancer (46% v 43% v 24%; P = .002), and OC cancer (77% v 76% v 59%; P < .001) compared with patients with higher educational levels. The proportion of patients with advanced lung cancer did not vary across educational levels (89% v 84% v 88%; P = .350). CONCLUSION A substantial proportion of patients in South India have advanced cancer at the time of diagnosis. This is particularly true among those with the lowest levels of education. Future health awareness and preventive interventions must target less-educated communities to reduce delays in seeking medical care for cancer.

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)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations47
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207