MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205977786 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052376

Age-standardised incidence rate and epidemiology of colorectal cancer in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4205977786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nina D. Arhin, Paddy Ssentongo, Morris F. Taylor, Elizabeth J. Olecki, Colette Pameijer, Chan Shen, John S. Oh, Cathy Eng

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDemographyIncidence (geometry)Colorectal cancerPopulationEpidemiologyCochrane LibraryMEDLINECancerEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths globally, with low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) disproportionately affected. Estimates of CRC rates in LMIC are scarce. We aimed to (1) estimate sex-specific incidence of CRC, (2) estimate temporal trend and (3) determine regional variations of CRC rates on the African continent. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), OVID (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception to 12 December 2020. We included population-based studies that reported the incidence or prevalence estimates of CRC in Africa. Studies not conducted in humans or did not directly report the rates of CRC were excluded. Random effects model was used to pool the estimates. The methodological quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall and sex-specific annual age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) of CRC per 100 000 population. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 14 studies consisting of 3365 individuals with CRC (mean age, 58 years, 53% male). The overall ASIR of CRC in Africa per 100 000 population was 5.25 (95% CI 4.08 to 6.75). The rates were slightly higher in males (4.76) than in females (4.18), but not significantly different. Subgroup analysis indicated greater point estimates in North Africa (8.66) compared with sub-Saharan Africa (5.91); and higher estimates in Eastern (8.29) and Northern (8.66) Africa compared with Western (3.55) and Southern (3.57) Africa, but not statistically significant. The overall trend in ASIR has remained constant at nearly 5 per 100 000 population for the last 6 decades. CONCLUSION: CRC estimates in Africa are heterogeneous and could be underestimated. High-quality data collection systems such as population-based cancer registries may facilitate accurate estimation of country-specific rates and provide critical information which would be lucrative to the consideration of resources needed for screening, early detection, treatment and improving overall patient outcomes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207