Approaches to developing de novo cancer population models to examine questions about cancer and race in bladder, gastric, and endometrial cancer and multiple myeloma: the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network incubator program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We are developing 10 de novo population-level mathematical models in 4 malignancies (multiple myeloma and bladder, gastric, and uterine cancers). Each of these sites has documented disparities in outcome that are believed to be downstream effects of systemic racism. METHODS: Ten models are being independently developed as part of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network incubator program. These models simulate trends in cancer incidence, early diagnosis, treatment, and mortality for the general population and are stratified by racial subgroup. Model inputs are based on large population datasets, clinical trials, and observational studies. Some core parameters are shared, and other parameters are model specific. All models are microsimulation models that use self-reported race to stratify model inputs. They can simulate the distribution of relevant risk factors (eg, smoking, obesity) and insurance status (for multiple myeloma and uterine cancer) in US birth cohorts and population. DISCUSSION: The models aim to refine approaches in prevention, detection, and management of 4 cancers given uncertainties and constraints. They will help explore whether the observed racial disparities are explainable by inequities, assess the effects of existing and potential cancer prevention and control policies on health equity and disparities, and identify policies that balance efficiency and fairness in decreasing cancer mortality.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it