Trends in the Incidence of Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer With a Focus on Years Approaching Screening Age: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With recent evidence for the increasing risk of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC), we had the objective to evaluate the incidence of yCRC in 1-year age increments, particularly focusing around the screening age of 50 years. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal study using linked administrative health databases in British Columbia, Canada, including a provincial cancer registry, inpatient and outpatient visits, and vital statistics from January 1, 1986, to December 31, 2016. We calculated incidence rates per 100 000 at every age from 20 to 60 years and estimated annual percent change in incidence (APCi) of yCRC using joinpoint regression analysis. RESULTS: We identified 3614 individuals with yCRC (49.9% women). The incidence of CRC steadily increased from 20 to 60 years, with a marked increase from 49 to 50 years (incidence rate ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.34). Furthermore, there was a trend of increased incidence of yCRC among women (APCi = 0.79%, 95% CI = 0.22% to 1.36%) and men (APCi = 2.17%, 95% CI = 1.59% to 2.76%). Analyses stratified by age yielded APCis of 2.49% (95% CI = 1.36% to 3.63%) and 0.12% (95% CI = -0.54% to 0.79%) for women aged 30-39 years and 40-49 years, respectively, and 2.97% (95% CI = 1.65% to 4.31%) and 1.86% (95% CI = 1.19% to 2.53%) for men. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a steady increase over 1-year age increments in the risk of yCRC during the years approaching and beyond screening age. These findings highlight the need to raise awareness as well as continue discussions regarding considerations of lowering the screening age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".