Malignancy rates of salivary gland tumors in Greenlandic Inuit comparable to non-endemic populations; epidemiological mapping of salivary gland tumors 1990–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salivary gland tumors are assumed to be predominantly malignant in the Greenlandic Inuit population, but there is limited literature on the subject. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using national registers to describe the histological tumor types, location, incidence, and survival of benign and malignant salivary gland tumors. METHODS: We analyzed data on all Greenlandic Inuit with an epithelial-derived salivary gland tumor from 1990 to 2019. We extracted data from the Central Personal Registry and crossmatched it with the Danish Pathology Data Bank. All specimens were reviewed by a specialized pathologist. We noted patient and histological characteristics, calculated crude and age-adjusted incidence rates, overall survival, and excess mortality. RESULTS: Our study found that 76% of salivary gland tumors in the Greenlandic Inuit population were benign, with pleomorphic adenoma being the most common. Malignant tumors accounted for 24% of cases, with lymphoepithelial carcinoma being the most common type. The most common place of origin for malignant tumors was the parotid gland (71%) and the submandibular gland (15%). The median age of onset for malignant tumors was 47 years. Age-adjusted incidence rates of malignant tumors for men and women were 3.00 and 4.12 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the proportion of malignant salivary gland tumors in the Greenlandic Inuit population is similar to other nonendemic populations. Our incidence rates are higher than previously reported, likely due to differences in methodology and definitions of the Inuit population. This study provides valuable insights into the epidemiology of salivary gland tumors in the Greenlandic Inuit population and may have implications for other Inuit populations as well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".