MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389606885 · doi:10.1093/jncics/pkad105

Progress in cancer control leads to a substantial number of cancer deaths avoided in Canada

2023· article· en· W4389606885 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew T. Warkentin, Yibing Ruan, Larry F. Ellison, Jean‐Michel Billette, Alain Demers, Fei‐Fei Liu, Darren R. Brenner

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Cancer Spectrum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health Agency of CanadaInstitute of Cancer ResearchStatistics CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerStandardized mortality ratioDemographyMortality ratePopulationCause of deathEnvironmental healthSurgeryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is currently not known how many more cancer deaths would have occurred among Canadians if cancer mortality rates were unchanged following various modern human interventions. The objective of this study was to estimate the number of cancer deaths that have been avoided in Canada since the age-standardized overall cancer mortality rate peaked in 1988. We applied the age-specific overall cancer mortality rates from 1988 to the Canadian population for all subsequent years to estimate the number of expected deaths. Avoided cancer deaths were estimated as the difference between the observed and expected number of cancer deaths for each year. Since 1988, there have been 372 584 (standardized mortality ratio = 0.77) and 120 045 (standardized mortality ratio = 0.90) avoided cancer deaths in males and females, respectively (492 629 total). Nearly half a million cancer deaths have been avoided in Canada since the overall cancer mortality rate peaked, which demonstrates the exceptional progress made in modern cancer control in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Cancer SpectrumSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207