Burden of prostate cancer in the Middle East: A comparative analysis based on global cancer observatory data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer represents a significant global health issue, yet our understanding of its impact in the Middle East remains limited. This study aimed to assess the incidence and mortality of prostate cancer in the Middle East, and compare these rates to those in Europe and North America. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the 2020 Global Cancer Observatory data, compiling incidence and mortality rates of prostate cancer in 20 Middle Eastern countries. We calculated mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIR) and compared the age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and MIR between the Middle East and the combined regions of North America and Europe. The countries were further stratified based on the Human Development Index (HDI) and income level for additional analysis. RESULTS: In 2020, the Middle East documented an estimated 51,649 new prostate cancer diagnoses, accounting for 3.7% of global cases. Despite a significantly lower ASIR in the Middle East compared with Europe and North America (10.50 vs. 21.50, p = 0.0087), the region had a higher MIR (12.35 vs. 3.00, p = 0.0476). When stratified based on HDI or income levels, there was no significant difference in MIRs; however, a significant trend of increasing MIR with decreasing HDI (p = 0.028) and income levels (p = 0.016) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lower incidence, our analysis showed a significantly higher MIR for prostate cancer in the Middle East compared with Europe and North America. These findings underscore the unique challenges posed by prostate cancer in the Middle East and emphasize the necessity of tailored strategies to address this pressing public health issue.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".