Cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis among people with recent‐onset psychotic disorders: A retrospective cohort study using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prior evidence on the relative risk of cancer among people with psychotic disorders is equivocal. The objective of this study was to compare incidence and stage at diagnosis of cancer for people with psychotic disorders relative to the general population. METHOD: We constructed a retrospective cohort of people with a first diagnosis of non-affective psychotic disorder and a comparison group from the general population using linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. The cohort was followed for incident diagnoses of cancer over a 25-year period. We used Poisson and logistic regression models to compare cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis between people with psychotic disorders and the comparison group, adjusting for confounding factors. RESULTS: People with psychotic disorders had an 8.6% higher incidence (IRR = 1.09, 95%CI = 1.05,1.12) of cancer overall relative to the comparison group, with effect modification by sex and substantial variation across cancer sites. People with psychotic disorders also had 23% greater odds (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.13,1.34) of being diagnosed with more advanced stage cancer relative to the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of elevated cancer incidence in people with non-affective psychotic disorders relative to the general population. The higher odds of more advanced stage cancer diagnoses in people with psychotic disorders represents an opportunity to improve patient participation in recommended cancer screening, as well as timely access to services for cancer diagnosis and treatment. Future research should examine confounding effects of lifestyle factors and antipsychotic medications on the risk of developing cancer among people with psychotic disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".