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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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