MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4316171103 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.13.23284277

Differences in site-specific cancer incidence by individual- and area-level income in Canada from 2006-2015

2023· preprint· en· W4316171103 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Parker Tope, Samantha Morais, Mariam El‐Zein, Eduardo L. Franco, Talía Malagón

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitute of Infection and ImmunityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusDemographyMedicineIncidence (geometry)Cancer registryHousehold incomeEnvironmental healthGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction Income, a component of socioeconomic status, influences cancer risk as a social determinant of health. We evaluated the independent associations between individual- and area-level income, and site-specific cancer incidence in Canada. Methods We used data from the 2006 and 2011 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohorts, which are probabilistically linked datasets constituted by 5.9 million and 6.5 million respondents of the 2006 Canadian long-form census and 2011 National Household Survey, respectively. Individuals were linked to the Canadian Cancer Registry through 2015. Individual-level income was derived using after-tax household income adjusted for household size. Annual tax return postal codes were used to assign area-level household income quintiles to individuals for each year of follow-up. We calculated age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) and rate ratios for cancers overall and by site. We conducted multivariable negative binomial regression to adjust these rates for other demographic and socioeconomic variables. Results Individuals of lower individual- and area-level income had higher ASIRs compared to those in the wealthiest income quintile for head and neck, oropharyngeal, esophageal, stomach, colorectal, anal, liver, pancreas, lung, cervical, and kidney and renal pelvis cancers. Conversely, individuals of wealthier individual- and area-level income had higher ASIRs for melanoma, leukemia, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, breast, uterine, prostate, and testicular cancers. Most differences in site-specific incidence by income quintile remained after adjustment. Conclusions Although Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system provides universal coverage, inequalities in cancer incidence persist across individual- and area-level income gradients. Our estimates suggest that individual- and area-level income affect cancer incidence through independent mechanisms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→