S637 Temporal Trends in the Mortality of Esophageal Malignancies in Canada Over the Past 3 Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Esophageal cancer results in significant global health and socioeconomic burden due to the associated morbidity and mortality despite not being among the most prevalent malignancies. Therefore, the evaluation of the temporal trends of esophageal cancer-related mortality in Canada over the past 3 decades is of paramount interest for the effective introduction of advanced therapeutic interventions, preventative measures, and health policies. Methods: Temporal trends in the mortality of esophageal malignancies in Canada over the past 30 years were initially evaluated by accessing relevant data from the Global Burden of Diseases 2019 database. The Annual Percentage Change (APC) and the Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) were stratified by age and gender and calculated using Joinpoint Analysis software (v 5.2.0, National Cancer Institute). Results: Over the period 1990-2019, a total of 56,030 esophageal cancer-related deaths were reported in Canada with a staggering male predominance of 73.5%. Age stratification revealed a statistically significant increase in esophageal cancer-related mortality across all age groups, with individuals aged 15-49 years old experiencing the highest increment (AAPC 1.96; 95%CI 1.70 to 2.25; P< 0.001). A similar increase in esophageal cancer-related deaths was observed in the 50-74 years old age group with an AAPC of 1.92 (95%CI 1.80 to 2.01; P< 0.001). The least incline was noted in elderly individuals aged 75 years and older with an AAPC of 1.31 (95%CI 1.13 to 1.49; P< 0.001). Stratification by gender also demonstrated a statistically significant incline in esophageal cancer-related mortality in both males and females, with males having a more prominent increase (AAPC 2.03; 95%CI 1.91 to 2.14; P< 0.001 in males and AAPC 0.51; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.64; P< 0.001 in females). Conclusion: Over a span of 3 decades, esophageal cancer-related mortality in Canada witnessed a significant incline across all age groups and in both males and females. Such trends are exceptionally worrisome and mandate prompt interventions to effectively tackle the resultant burden.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".