Incidence of brain metastasis according to patient race and primary cancer origin: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A systematic review was conducted to investigate differences in incidence and primary origin of synchronous brain metastasis (sBM) in varying racial groups with different primary cancers. METHODS: Adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines a search was conducted using PubMed and Ovid databases for publications from January 2000 to January 2023, with search terms including combinations of "brain metastasis," "race," "ethnicity," and "incidence." Three independent reviewers screened for inclusion criteria encompassing studies clearly reporting primary cancer sites, patient demographics including race, and synchronous BM (sBM) incidence. RESULTS: Of 806 articles, 10 studies comprised of mainly adult patients from the United States met final inclusion for data analysis. Higher sBM incidence proportions were observed in American Indian/Alaska native patients for primary breast (p < 0.001), colorectal (p = 0.015), and esophageal cancers (p = 0.024) as well as in Asian or Pacific islanders for primary stomach (p < 0.001), thyroid (p = 0.006), and lung/bronchus cancers (p < 0.001) yet higher proportions in White patients for malignant melanoma (p < 0.001). Compared to White patients, Black patients had higher sBM incidence likelihood in breast cancer (OR = 1.27, p = 0.01) but lower likelihood in renal (OR = 0.46, p < 0.001) and esophageal cancers (OR = 0.31, p = 0.005). American Indian/Alaska native patients had a higher sBM likelihood (OR = 3.78, p = 0.004) relative to White patients in esophageal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal several comparative racial differences in sBM incidence arising from different primary cancer origins, underscoring a need for further research to explain these variations. Identifying the factors contributing to these disparities holds the potential to promote greater equity in oncological care according to cancer type.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".