Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring the progress of cancer survival in a population over time is an important part of cancer surveillance. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from the Canadian Cancer Registry with mortality follow-up through record linkage to the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database and tax files. Net survival (NS) was derived using the Pohar Perme method. Predicted estimates of NS for the period from 2012 to 2014 were calculated using the period method. Age-standardized and age-specific changes in five-year NS between the periods from 1992 to 1994 and 2012 to 2014 were determined for 30 individual cancers. RESULTS: Predicted five-year NS for 2012 to 2014 ranged from 98% for thyroid cancer to 7% for mesothelioma. Between 1992 to 1994 and 2012 to 2014, improvements in five-year age standardized NS were greatest for chronic myeloid leukemia (23.9 percentage points), though a large majority of the increase occurred in the first decade. Increases exceeding 15.0 percentage points were also observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (19.5), cancer of the small intestine (17.4) and multiple myeloma (16.9). In contrast, little to no improvement was observed for cancers of the anus, larynx, soft tissue or uterus, or for mesothelioma. Increases in five-year NS were greatest for chronic myeloid leukemia in each age group with the exception of those aged 75 to 84 years (thyroid). DISCUSSION: This study reveals important areas of progress in cancer outcomes in Canada since the early 1990s. It also sheds light on cancers for which there has seemingly been no improvement in five-year net survival over a 20-year period.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".