Recent and projected incidence trends and risk of anal cancer among people with HIV in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anal cancer risk is elevated among people with HIV. Recent anal cancer incidence patterns among people with HIV in the United States and Canada remain unclear. It is unknown how the incidence patterns may evolve. METHODS: Using data from the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design, we investigated absolute anal cancer incidence and incidence trends nationally in the United States and Canada and in different US regions. We further estimated relative risk compared with people without HIV, relative risk among various subgroups, and projected future anal cancer burden among American people with HIV. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2016 in the United States, age-standardized anal cancer incidence declined 2.2% per year (95% confidence interval = ‒4.4% to ‒0.1%), particularly in the Western region (‒3.8% per year, 95% confidence interval = ‒6.5% to ‒0.9%). In Canada, incidence remained stable. Considerable geographic variation in risk was observed by US regions (eg, more than 4-fold risk in the Midwest and Southeast compared with the Northeast among men who have sex with men who have HIV). Anal cancer risk increased with a decrease in nadir CD4 cell count and was elevated among those individuals with opportunistic illnesses. Anal cancer burden among American people with HIV is expected to decrease through 2035, but more than 70% of cases will continue to occur in men who have sex with men who have HIV and in people with AIDS. CONCLUSION: Geographic variation in anal cancer risk and trends may reflect underlying differences in screening practices and HIV epidemic. Men who have sex with men who have HIV and people with prior AIDS diagnoses will continue to bear the highest anal cancer burden, highlighting the importance of precision prevention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".