MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183045865 · doi:10.1093/jjco/hyab123

Age-specific lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer incidence rate in the world

2021· article· en· W3183045865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eiko Saito, Mariko Niino

Bibliographic record

VenueJapanese Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharynxOral cavityIncidence (geometry)CancerCancer incidenceDentistryInternal medicineSurgeryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to make a comparison of the age-specific lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer incidence rate between Japan and other countries, we abstracted cancer incidence rate from the Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vol. XI (CI5) (1). The International Agency for Research on Cancer provides the CI5 databases on the incidence of cancer recorded by cancer registries (regional and national) worldwide. We used cancer incidence rate in five countries in Asia (China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and Thailand), three countries in America (the USA, Canada and Brazil), two countries in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) and four countries in Europe (the UK, France, Germany and Italy). Some countries have plural cancer registries and we aggregated the all registries to calculate the incidence rate in the countries from the CI5-XI database. The period of years at cancer diagnosis was from 2008 to 2012. Lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer was coded as C00-C14 based on ICD-10. Age-specific lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer incidence rate per 100 000 people in male. Age-specific lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer incidence rate per 100 000 people in female. Figure 1 shows the age-specific incidence rates of lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer by 5-year age groups for the selected countries in males. In general, incidence rates of lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer in adults were on average higher in America and Oceania (except Australia) compared to countries in Asia and Europe, with the age-specific incidence rates showing a sharp increase until age 55–59 years, then started to slow down thereafter. In Asia, Thailand has seen a rapid increase after 40 years of age and showed the highest incidence rates in Asia, peaking at 55–59 years old (101.1 per 100 000). In America and Oceania, the USA showed highest incidence rates in older adults (109.2 per 100 000 in men aged 75–79 years), while Australia showed lower incidence rates after 50 years old than all other countries in this study. Europe also showed similar incidence curves, with the incidence rising according to age, and Germany showing the highest incidence rates in most of the age groups. Figure 2 shows the age-specific incidence rates of lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancer by 5-year age groups for the selected countries in females. Overall, women showed similar incidence rates as those of men until the age of 25–29 years across all regions, but the incidence rates of men started to surpass those of women after 30 years old. While we did not observe any cross-regional variations in age-specific incidence rates, within-regional differences were clearly observed. In Asia, India showed the lowest incidence rates in adults than all other countries in the region. In American and Oceania, New Zealand showed by far the highest incidence rates compared to all other countries in this study, peaking at 70–74 years old (43.7 per 100 000). In Europe, Germany again showed consistently highest incidence rates in the majority of the age groups than other countries in the region, which was similar to the incidence rates observed in males. Note: Data were downloaded from the Global Cancer Observatory (GCO), which is an interactive web-based platform presenting global cancer statistics (https://gco.iarc.fr/). Responsibility for this presentation and interpretation lies with the authors of this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapanese Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207