Regional Variability in Survival for Patients Diagnosed with Selected Central Nervous System Tumours in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care in Canada is managed by provinces/territories. We investigated regional differences in survival among Canadians diagnosed with central nervous system (CNS) tumours. We identified 50,670 patients diagnosed with a first-ever primary CNS tumour between 2008 and 2017 with follow-up until December 31, 2017. We selected the four highest incidence histologies and used proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for five regions (British Columbia, Prairie provinces, Ontario, Atlantic provinces and the Territories), adjusting for sex, tumour behaviour and patient age. Ontario had the best survival profile for all histologies investigated. The Atlantic provinces had the highest HR for glioblastoma (HR=1.26, 95% CI:1.18-1.35) and malignant glioma not otherwise specified (NOS) (Overall: HR=1.87, 95% CI:1.43-2.43; Pediatric population: HR=2.86, 95% CI:1.28-6.39). For meningioma, the Territories had the highest HR (HR=2.44, 95% CI:1.09-5.45) followed by the Prairie provinces (HR=1.52, 95% CI:1.38-1.67). For malignant unclassified tumours, the highest HRs were in British Columbia (HR=1.45, 95% CI:1.22-1.71) and the Atlantic provinces (HR=1.40, 95% CI:1.13-1.74). There are regional differences in the survival of CNS patients at the population level for all four specific histological types of CNS tumours investigated. Factors contributing to these observed regional survival differences are unknown and warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".