Exploring the Future of Cancer Impact in Alberta: Projections and Trends 2020–2040
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of cancer in Alberta is expected to grow considerably, largely driven by population growth and aging. The Future of Cancer Impact (FOCI) initiative offers an overview of the present state of cancer care in Alberta and highlights potential opportunities for research and innovation across the continuum. In this paper, we present a series of detailed projections and analyses regarding cancer epidemiological estimates in Alberta, Canada. Data on cancer incidence and mortality in Alberta (1998-2018) and limited-duration cancer prevalence in Alberta (2000-2019) were collected from the Alberta Cancer Registry. We used the Canproj package in the R software to project these epidemiological estimates up to the year 2040. To estimate the direct management costs, we ran a series of microsimulations using the OncoSim All Cancers Model. Our findings indicate that from 2020, the total number of annual new cancer cases and cancer-related deaths are projected to increase by 56% and 49% by 2040, respectively. From 2019, the five-year prevalence of all cancers in Alberta is projected to increase by 86% by 2040. In line with these trends, the overall direct cost of cancer management is estimated to increase by 53% in 2040. These estimates and projections are integral to future strategic planning and investment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".