MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401160768 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(24)00156-7

Differences in cancer rates among adults born between 1920 and 1990 in the USA: an analysis of population-based cancer registry data

2024· article· en· W4401160768 on OpenAlexaff
Hyuna Sung, Priti Bandi, Adair K. Minihan, Miranda M Fidler-Benaoudia, Farhad Islami, Rebecca L. Siegel, Ahmedin Jemal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsMedicineCohortCancerCancer registryIncidence (geometry)DemographyPancreatic cancerPopulationCohort studyStandardized mortality ratioMortality rateCohort effectInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundTrends in cancer incidence in recent birth cohorts largely reflect changes in exposures during early life and foreshadow the future disease burden. Herein, we examined cancer incidence and mortality trends, by birth cohort, for 34 types of cancer in the USA.MethodsIn this analysis, we obtained incidence data for 34 types of cancer and mortality data for 25 types of cancer for individuals aged 25–84 years for the period Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2019 from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and the US National Center for Health Statistics, respectively. We calculated birth cohort-specific incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and mortality rate ratios (MRRs), adjusted for age and period effects, by nominal birth cohort, separated by 5 year intervals, from 1920 to 1990.FindingsWe extracted data for 23 654 000 patients diagnosed with 34 types of cancer and 7 348 137 deaths from 25 cancers for the period Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2019. We found that IRRs increased with each successive birth cohort born since approximately 1920 for eight of 34 cancers (pcohort<0·050). Notably, the incidence rate was approximately two-to-three times higher in the 1990 birth cohort than in the 1955 birth cohort for small intestine (IRR 3·56 [95% CI 2·96–4·27]), kidney and renal pelvis (2·92 [2·50–3·42]), and pancreatic (2·61 [2·22–3·07]) cancers in both male and female individuals; and for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer in female individuals (2·05 [1·23–3·44]). Additionally, the IRRs increased in younger cohorts, after a decline in older birth cohorts, for nine of the remaining cancers (pcohort<0·050): oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, uterine corpus cancer, colorectal cancer, non-cardia gastric cancer, gallbladder and other biliary cancer, ovarian cancer, testicular cancer, anal cancer in male individuals, and Kaposi sarcoma in male individuals. Across cancer types, the incidence rate in the 1990 birth cohort ranged from 12% (IRR1990 vs 1975 1·12 [95% CI 1·03–1·21] for ovarian cancer) to 169% (IRR1990 vs 1930 2·69 [2·34–3·08] for uterine corpus cancer) higher than the rate in the birth cohort with the lowest incidence rate. The MRRs increased in successively younger birth cohorts alongside IRRs for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer in female individuals, uterine corpus, gallbladder and other biliary, testicular, and colorectal cancers, while MRRs declined or stabilised in younger birth cohorts for most cancers types.Interpretation17 of 34 cancers had an increasing incidence in younger birth cohorts, including nine that previously had declining incidence in older birth cohorts. These findings add to growing evidence of increased cancer risk in younger generations, highlighting the need to identify and tackle underlying risk factors.FundingAmerican Cancer Society.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations78
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207