MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303628986 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29100588

Time Trend of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Incidence in China from 1990 to 2019 and Analysis Using an Age–Period–Cohort Model

2022· article· en· W4303628986 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yongtian Lin, Zengqing Guo, Shuna Huang, Jingyu Ma, Zhisheng Xiang, Yongying Huang, Yan Zhou, Wanqing Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)CohortChinaPeriod (music)DemographyCancer incidenceCohort effectCohort studyGastrointestinal cancerCancerInternal medicineColorectal cancerGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the upper gastrointestinal cancer incidence trend in China from 1990 to 2019 with Joinpoint software and to evaluate the age effect, cohort effect, and period effect using the age–period–cohort model, with the data obtained from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study. The crude incidence rate (CR) of upper gastrointestinal cancer in China increased from 41.48/100,000 in 1990 to 62.64/100,000 in 2019, and the average annual percent change (AAPC) was 1.42 (p < 0.05). The age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) decreased from 50.77/100,000 to 37.42/100,000, and the AAPC was −1.12 (p < 0.05). The net drift was −0.83 (p < 0.05), and the local drifts in the 35–79 age groups of males and all age groups of females were less than 0 (p < 0.05). The age effect showed that the upper gastrointestinal cancer onset risk gradually increased with age, the period effect was fundamentally manifested as a downward trend in onset risk after 2000, and the cohort effect indicated the decreased onset risk of the overall birth cohort after 1926. The ASIR of upper gastrointestinal cancer in China from 1990 to 2019 showed a downward trend, and the onset risk indicated the age, period, and cohort effects.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 venueCurrent OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207