Colon Cancer Care of Hispanic People in California: Paradoxical Barrio Protections Seem Greatest among Vulnerable Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We examined paradoxical and barrio advantaging effects on cancer care among socioeconomically vulnerable Hispanic people in California. Methods We secondarily analyzed a colon cancer cohort of 3,877 non-Hispanic white (NHW) and 735 Hispanic people treated between 1995 and 2005. A third of the cohort was selected from high poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic enclaves and Mexican American (MA) barrios were neighborhoods where 40% or more of the residents were Hispanic or MA. Key analyses were restricted to high poverty neighborhoods. Results Hispanic people were more likely to receive chemotherapy (RR=1.18), especially men in Hispanic enclaves (RR=1.33) who were also advantaged on survival (RR=1.20). A survival advantage was also suggested among MA men who resided in barrios (RR=1.80). Conclusions The findings were supportive of Hispanic paradox and MA barrio advantage theories. They further suggested that such advantages are greater for men, perhaps due to their greater spousal and extended familial support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".