S287 Temporal Trends in the Incidence of Colorectal Cancer in Canada for the Past 3 Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most prevalent malignancies worldwide and is regarded to be the most prevalent among males in certain regions and countries. Thus, the identification of temporal trends in the incidence of CRC is of particular significance in the introduction of effective preventative measures and health policies. Methods: The incidence of CRC in Canada over the past 30 years was initially evaluated by utilizing the Global Burden of Diseases 2019 database. The temporal trends were assessed through the Joinpoint Analysis software that was used to calculate the Annual Percentage Change (APC) and the Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC), stratified by age and gender. Results: Over the time period of 1990-2019, a total of 713,270 CRC cases have been reported in Canada with a male predominance of 54.1%. Stratification by age revealed 2 Joinpoints among the 15-49 years old age group with a statistically significant incline in the incidence of CRC (AAPC 1.70; 95%CI 1.582 to 1.82; P < 0.001). Interestingly, the 50-74 years old age group had a statistically significant decline in the incidence of CRC with an AAPC of -0.37 (95%CI -0.45 to -0.30; P < 0.001). Whereas in the 75+ years old age group, a statistically significant increase in incidence was observed with an AAPC of 0.28 (95%CI 0.21 to 0.34; P < 0.001). In terms of stratification by gender, both males and females demonstrated a statistically significant increase in CRC incidence that was more notable in males, who had 2 identified Joinpoints, with an AAPC of 1.99 (95%CI 1.91 to 2.05; P < 0.001), while females had 3 identified Joinpoints and an AAPC of 1.38 (95%CI 1.31 to 1.47; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Over the past 30 years, CRC incidence in Canada observed a significant incline in the 15-49 years old and 75+ years old age groups coupled with a decline in the incidence among individuals aged 50-74 years old. Such findings can be explained by increased uptake of screening modalities. Nonetheless, an increment in CRC incidence was noted in both males and females, thus mandating prompt measures and interventions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".