The association between neighborhood‐level income and cancer stage at diagnosis and survival in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a range of health outcomes, including cancer diagnosis and survival. However, the evidence for this association is inconsistent between countries with and without single-payer health care systems. In this study, the relationships between neighborhood-level income, cancer stage at diagnosis, and cancer-specific mortality in Alberta, Canada, were evaluated. METHODS: The Alberta Cancer Registry was used to identify all primary cancer diagnoses between 2010 and 2020. Average neighborhood income was determined by linking the Canadian census to postal codes and was categorized into quintiles on the basis of income distribution in Alberta. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression was used to model the association between income quintile and stage at diagnosis, and the Fine-Gray proportional subdistribution hazards model was used to estimate the association between SES and cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Out of the 143,818 patients with cancer included in the study, those in lower income quintiles were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at stage III (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI [confidence interval], 1.06-1.09) or IV (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.11-1.14) after adjusting for age and sex. Lower income quintiles also had significantly worse cancer-specific survival for breast, colorectal, liver, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, oral cavity, pancreas, and prostate cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities were observed in cancer outcomes across neighborhood-level income groups in Alberta, which demonstrates that health inequities by SES exist in countries with single-payer health care systems. Further research is needed to better understand the underlying causes and to develop strategies to mitigate these disparities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".