MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155747288 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200139

Sociodemographic characteristics of women with invasive cervical cancer in British Columbia, 2004–2013: a descriptive study

2021· article· en· W3155747288 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jonathan Simkin, Laurie Smith, Dirk van Niekerk, Hannah Caird, Tania Dearden, Kimberly van der Hoek, Nadine R. Caron, Ryan Woods, Stuart Peacock, Gina Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlSimon Fraser UniversityWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDemographyMedicineCancer registryConfidence intervalCervical cancerPopulationMarital statusEthnic groupIncidence (geometry)Descriptive statisticsCancerGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although cancer screening has led to reductions in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) across Canada, benefits of prevention efforts are not equitably distributed. This study investigated the sociodemographic characteristics of women with ICC in British Columbia compared with the general female population in the province. Methods: In this descriptive study, data of individuals 18 years and older diagnosed with ICC between 2004 and 2013 were obtained from the BC Cancer Registry. Self-reported sociodemographic characteristics were derived from standardized health assessment forms (HAFs) completed upon admission in the BC Cancer Registry. Standardized ratios (SRs) were derived by dividing observed and age-adjusted expected counts by ethnicity or race, language, and marital, smoking and urban–rural status. Differences between observed and expected counts were tested using χ2 goodness-of-fit tests. General population data were derived from the 2006 Census, 2011 National Household Survey and 2011/12 Canadian Community Health Survey. Results: Of 1705 total cases of ICC, 1315 were referred to BC Cancer (77.1%). Of those who were referred, 1215 (92.4%) completed HAFs. Among Indigenous women, more cases were observed (n = 85) than expected (n = 39; SR 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.15–2.18). Among visible minorities, observed cases (n = 320) were higher than expected (n = 253; 95% CI 1.26–1.26). Elevated SRs were observed among women who self-identified as Korean (SR 1.78, 95% CI 1.76–1.80), Japanese (SR 1.77, 95% CI 1.74–1.79) and Filipino (SR 1.60, 95% CI 1.58–1.62); lower SRs were observed among South Asian women (SR 0.63, 95% CI 0.62–0.63). Elevated SRs were observed among current smokers (SR 1.34, 95% CI 1.33–1.34) and women living in rural-hub (SR 1.29, 95% CI 1.28–1.31) and rural or remote (SR 2.62, 95% CI 2.61–2.64) areas; the SR was lower among married women (SR 0.90, 95% CI 0.90–0.90). Interpretation: Women who self-identified as visible minorities, Indigenous, current smokers, nonmarried and from rural areas were overrepresented among women with ICC. Efforts are needed to address inequities to ensure all women benefit from cervical cancer prevention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207