MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398255805 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2024.199

P.094 Incidence of pathologically confirmed primary malignant brain tumours in Newfoundland and Labrador: an eight-year review spanning 2015-2022

2024· article· en· W4398255805 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
L Boone, Abbas Kazerouni, Theresa Noble, John Barron, Robin K. Avery

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)MedicineOligodendrogliomaPopulationGlioblastomaDemographyInternal medicineAstrocytomaEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Considering regional and temporal trends, we sought to explore the incidence of primary malignant brain tumours in Newfoundland and Labrador. Methods: We reviewed all primary, malignant brain tumour cases from 2015-2022 confirmed by St. John’s Health Sciences Centre pathology reports. Incidence rates were standardized using the 2011 Canadian standard population. Results: We included 362 cases. The average annual age-standardized incidence rate of primary, malignant brain tumours per 100,000 was 7.0 (95% CI: 6.3-7.7), lower than the national average (7.93; 95% CI: 7.78-8.08). The incidence of glioblastoma (5.1; 95% CI: 4.5-5.7) was significantly higher than the national average (4.05; 95% CI: 3.95-4.16). Temporal trends revealed that oligodendroglioma incidence spiked from 0.5 (95% CI: 0.2-0.7) in 2015-2019 to 1.5 (95% CI: 0.4-2.6) in 2020 before returning to baseline in 2022. Regional trends indicated a lower incidence of malignant tumours in Labrador-Grenfell (5.1; 95% CI: 2.5-7.6), compared to 6.9 (95% CI: 6.2-7.6) averaged elsewhere. Conclusions: Higher rates of glioblastoma in Newfoundland and Labrador could have a genetic or multi-factorial cause. The increased occurrence of oligodendroglioma during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates broader investigation, potentially linked to delays in patient care during this period. Regional trends could suggest less access to care in rural populations and underestimated incidence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207