Current State of Geospatial Methodologic Approaches in Canadian Population Oncology Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Geospatial analyses are increasingly used in population oncology. We provide a first review of geospatial analysis in Canadian population oncology research, compare to international peers, and identify future directions. Geospatial-focused peer-reviewed publications from 1992–2020 were compiled using PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Abstracts were screened for data derived from a Canadian cancer registry and use of geographic information systems. Studies were classified by geospatial methodology, geospatial unit, location, cancer site, and study year. Common limitations were documented from article discussion sections. Our search identified 71 publications using data from all provincial and national cancer registries. Thirty-nine percent (N = 28) were published in the most recent 5-year period (2016–2020). Geospatial methodologies included exposure assessment (32.4%), identifying spatial associations (21.1%), proximity analysis (16.9%), cluster detection (15.5%), and descriptive mapping (14.1%). Common limitations included confounding, ecologic fallacy, not accounting for residential mobility, and small case/population sizes. Geospatial analyses are increasingly used in Canadian population oncology; however, efforts are concentrated among a few provinces and common cancer sites, and data are over a decade old. Limitations were similar to those documented internationally, and more work is needed to address them. Organized efforts are needed to identify common challenges, develop leading practices, and identify shared priorities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.286 | 0.447 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.061 | 0.103 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".