A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain population groups are known to have higher than average anal cancer risk, namely persons living with HIV (PLHIV), men who have sex with men (MSM), women diagnosed with human papillomavirus (HPV)-related gynecological precancerous lesions or cancer, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) and patients with autoimmune diseases. Our aim was to provide robust and comparable estimates of anal cancer burden across these groups. Summary incidence rates (IRs), as cases per 100 000 person-years (py), were calculated by fixed-effects meta-analysis. IRs were 85 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82-89) for HIV-positive MSM (n = 7 studies; 2 229 234 py), 32 (95% CI = 30-35) for non-MSM male PLHIV (n = 5; 1626 448 py) and 22 (95% CI = 19-24) for female PLHIV (n = 6; 1 472 123 py), with strong variation by age (eg, from 16.8 < 30 years to 107.5 ≥ 60 years for HIV-positive MSM). IR was 19 (95% CI = 10-36) in HIV-negative MSM (n = 2; 48 135 py). Anal cancer IRs were much higher after diagnosis of vulvar (IR = 48 [95% CI = 38-61]; n = 4; 145 147 py) than cervical (9 [95% CI = 8-12]; n = 4; 779 098 py) or vaginal (IR = 10 [95% CI = 3-30]; n = 4; 32 671) cancer, with equivalent disparity after respective precancerous lesions. IR was 13 (95% CI = 12-15) in SOTRs (n = 5; 1 946 206 py), reaching 24.5 and 49.6 for males and females >10 years after transplant. Anal cancer IRs were 10 (95% CI = 5-19), 6 (95% CI = 3-11) and 3 (95% CI = 2-4) for systemic lupus erythematosus, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, respectively. In conclusion, a unifying anal cancer risk scale, based upon comprehensive meta-analysis, can improve prioritization and standardization in anal cancer prevention/research initiatives, which are in their public health infancy.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it