MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214327462 · doi:10.33137/utjph.v2i2.36838

Examining prevalence of cancer risk factors across Ontario for the Ontario Cancer Profiles tool

2021· article· en· W3214327462 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amy Chang, Naomi Schwartz, Rebecca Truscott

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Journal of Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicinePublic healthPsychological interventionPopulationPopulation healthRisk assessmentRisk factorGerontologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ontario Cancer Profiles is an interactive dashboard for the public containing population-level cancerstatistics created by Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). The tool contains data on cancer burden, cancerscreening measures, and cancer risk factors by Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) and Public Health Unit (PHU). It can be used for health system planning, measuring health systems performance, monitoring the impact of interventions, and to help identify new areas of research. There were 9 new modifiable cancer risk factors proposed to be included in future updates of the dashboard. The proposed risk factors include: access to care, active transportation, binge drinking, alcohol abstinence, inadequate fruit consumption, inadequate vegetable consumption, sedentary behaviour, second-hand smoke exposure, and sun safety. My practicum consisted of two main objectives: to conduct a literature review on the association between the proposed risk factors and cancer and to determine the prevalence of exposure of the identified risk factors in Ontario using 2015 to 2017 CCHS data. I performed a literature review to examine current evidence linking each proposed risk factor with cancer risk to determine the inclusion or exclusion of the indicator in the analysis. An analysis was performed with the selected variables in CCHS. Each indicator was age-standardized, and both standardized and crude ratios of individuals engaging in selected indicator activities were calculated. The results were examined for reliability using the produced coefficient of variation values. The estimates for each risk indicators allowed for the identification of target population that may be at higher risk of developing cancer due to greater exposure to the risk factors. They also serve as useful predictors for areas of improvement in regions with a high prevalence, such as healthy living within the community, and a guide to implementing preventative measures, screening, or treatment plans that may have been lacking.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Journal of Public HealthSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207