Lung Cancer Prevalence in Virginia: A Spatial Zipcode-Level Analysis via INLA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Examining lung cancer (LC) cases in Virginia (VA) is essential due to its significant public health implications. By studying demographic, environmental, and socioeconomic variables, this paper aims to provide insights into the underlying drivers of LC prevalence in the state adjusted for spatial associations at the zipcode level. METHODS: We model the available VA zipcode-level LC counts via (spatial) Poisson and negative binomial regression models, taking into account missing covariate data, zipcode-level spatial association and allow for overdispersion. Under latent Gaussian Markov Random Field (GMRF) assumptions, our Bayesian hierarchical model powered by Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) considers simultaneous (spatial) imputation of all missing covariates through elegant prediction. The spatial random effect across zip codes follows a Conditional Autoregressive (CAR) prior. RESULTS: Zip codes with elevated smoking indices demonstrated a corresponding increase in LC counts, underscoring the well-established connection between smoking and LC. Additionally, we observed a notable correlation between higher Social Deprivation Index (SDI) scores and increased LC counts, aligning with the prevalent pattern of heightened LC prevalence in regions characterized by lower income and education levels. On the demographic level, our findings indicated higher LC counts in zip codes with larger White and Black populations (with Whites having higher prevalence than Blacks), lower counts in zip codes with higher Hispanic populations (compared to non-Hispanics), and higher prevalence among women compared to men. Furthermore, zip codes with a larger population of elderly people (age ≥ 65 years) exhibited higher LC prevalence, consistent with established national patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis contributes to our understanding of the complex interplay of demographic and socioeconomic factors influencing LC disparities in VA at the zip code level, providing valuable information for targeted public health interventions and resource allocation. Implementation code is available at GitHub.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".