Geographic and Socioeconomic Disparity of Gastric Cancer Patients in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastric cancer is the 5th most common malignancy worldwide, representing ~5-10% of all new cancer cases. Although its incidence is declining, it is estimated that 1 in 98 Canadians will develop gastric cancer in their lifetime. The epidemiology and distribution of gastric cancer throughout Canada, however, remains poorly understood. A retrospective analysis of demographic data across Canada between 1992 and 2010 was performed using 2 population-based cancer registries. The incidence of gastric cancer was examined at the levels of provinces, cities, and postal codes. In addition, 43,955 patients were diagnosed with gastric cancer in Canada between 1992 and 2010; 66% were male and the average age of diagnosis was 68.4 years. The age-adjusted incidence rate was 5.07 cases per 100,000 individuals per year. The incidence decreased over the study period by 30%. High incidence rates were identified in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Quebec. Our study found a significant association between gastric cancer incidence rates and lower socioeconomic status, as well as Hispanic ethnicity. This is the first study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the incidence of gastric carcinoma in Canada, identifying high-risk populations that may benefit from increased primary and secondary 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".