MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025451213 · doi:10.14740/wjon1279

Epidemiology of Renal Cell Carcinoma

2020· review· en· W3025451213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandeep Padala, Adam Barsouk, Krishna Chaitanya Thandra, Kalyan Saginala, Azeem Mohammed, Anusha Vakiti, Prashanth Rawla, Alexander Barsouk

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)EpidemiologyRenal cell carcinomaDiseaseObesityCancerDemographyGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2% of global cancer diagnoses and deaths, it has more than doubled in incidence in the developed world over the past half-century, and today is the ninth most common neoplasm in the United States (US). While North America and Western Europe have the highest disease burden (with the Belarus highest in incidence), Latin America, Asia and Africa are projected to see an increase in incidence as nation's transition to a Western lifestyle. Most cases of RCC are discovered incidentally on imaging, and survival is highly dependent on the stage at diagnosis, with the metastatic disease having only a 12% 5-year survival rate. Two-thirds of RCC diagnoses are made in men, and the average age of diagnosis in the US is 64. Those with genetic predispositions, namely von Hippel-Lindau disease, tend to be diagnosed 20 years earlier. RCC has a greater incidence among Hispanics and Native Americans, and a lower survival rate among African Americans in the US. Modifiable risk factors for RCC include smoking, obesity, poorly-controlled hypertension, diet and alcohol, and occupational exposures. Prevention strategies aimed at improving survival and reducing disparities include addressing lifestyle factors and access to regular healthcare among underserved populations and in developing nations, as well as more rigorous imaging guidelines to detect RCC at an earlier stage. A stronger understanding of global RCC epidemiology can facilitate prevention efforts, especially in developing nations and underserved communities where disease burden is predicted to rise in the coming decades.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,052
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207