MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229046480 · doi:10.1200/edbk_350241

Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Survival Differences and Potential Geographic Determinants Among Men and Women in Utah

2022· article· en· W4229046480 on OpenAlexaff
Charles R. Rogers, Kevin M. Korous, Ellen Brooks, Mary A. De Vera, Fa Tuuhetaufa, Todd Lucas, Karen Curtin, Curt Pesman, Wenora Johnson, Phuong Gallagher, Justin X. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsDemographyMedicineHazard ratioIncidence (geometry)Ethnic groupMortality rateCancer registryPopulationGerontologyColorectal cancerEpidemiologyCancerInternal medicineConfidence intervalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By 2030, early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) is expected to become the leading cancer-related cause of death for people age 20 to 49. To improve understanding of this phenomenon, we analyzed the geographic determinants of EOCRC in Utah by examining county-level incidence and mortality. We linked data from the Utah Population Database to the Utah Cancer Registry to identify residents (age 18-49) diagnosed with EOCRC between 2000 and 2020, and we used spatial empirical Bayes smoothing to determine county-level hotspots. We identified 1,867 EOCRC diagnoses (52.7% in male patients, 69.2% in non-Hispanic White patients). Ten counties (34%) were classified as hotspots, with high EOCRC incidence or mortality. Hotspot status was unrelated to incidence rates, but non-Hispanic ethnic-minority men (incidence rate ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.91), Hispanic White men and women (incidence rate ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 2.00-2.51), and Hispanic ethnic-minority men and women (incidence rate ratio, 4.59; 95% CI, 3.50-5.91) were more likely to be diagnosed with EOCRC. After adjustment for income and obesity, adults living in hotspots had a 31% higher hazard for death (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.69). Survival was poorest for adults with a late-stage diagnosis living in hotspots (chi square (1) = 4.0; p = .045). Adults who were married or who had a life partner had a lower hazard for death than single adults (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.92). The risk for EOCRC is elevated in 34% of Utah counties, warranting future research and interventions aimed at increasing screening and survival in the population age 18 to 49.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology Educational BookSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207