MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 4141272: Trends in Cancer Versus Cancer with Heart Failure Related Mortality in the United States from 1999-2020. A CDC WONDER Database Analysis

2024· article· en· W4404363316 on OpenAlexaff
Faizan Ahmed, Tehmasp Rehman Mirza, Brijesh Patel, Muhammad Abdullah Naveed, Salman Abdul Basit, Farman Ali, Syed Ishaq, Usman Akbar, Mobeen Z. Haider, Yasar Sattar, Faisal Khosa

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureWonderCancerDatabaseInternal medicineGerontologyCardiologyIntensive care medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: This study aimed to analyze two decades of consecutive mortality data to investigate the association between cancer and cancer with heart failure across the United States (US), discerning patterns and disparities in mortality rates. Methods: Data were obtained from the multiple cause of death files using CDC WONDER spanning 1999 to 2020; ICD-10 codes were used to identify cancer and cancer with heart failure related deaths in adults aged ≥25. Demographic and regional distributions of mortality were analyzed. Joinpoint regression analysis was used to determine trends in age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) to estimate annual percentage changes (APC). Results: Between 1999 and 2020, 14,309,991 cancer-related deaths occurred in the US out of which 612,346 were associated with cancer and heart failure. The overall AAMR per 100,000 for cancer-related deaths decreased from 353.9 in 1999 to 260.9 in 2020 characterized by an annual percentage change (APC) of -1.60 spanning from 1999 to 2018, and an APC of 0.58 thereafter till 2020. AAMR per 100,000 for heart failure and cancer-related deaths decreased from 16.1 to 14.0, with varied APCs, declining from 1999 to 2013, reaching a minimum AAMR of 11 followed by a rise from 2013 to 2020. For cancer related only, men accounted for 52.7% of deaths, compared to 47.3% for women. Similarly, cancer with heart failure had mortality higher in males. Non-Hispanic (NH) White and Hispanic populations had the highest AAMRs for cancer related mortality while NH White and NH American Indian or Alaskan Native had the highest mortality in cancer with heart failure. Regional differences were observed, with the most cancer-related deaths observed in the South while the most cancer with heart failure related deaths occurred in the Midwest. State-wise stratification further supported the difference. Conclusions: Cancer-related mortality is decreasing while cancer with heart failure related mortality is increasing following initial decline. The highest AAMRs were observed for cancer related mortality among NH White population, men, people living in the South; and non-metropolitan US while cancer with heart failure had highest mortality in NH White population, men, people living in Midwest; and non-metropolitan areas. The findings underscore the need for focused interventions aimed at reducing mortality related to cancer and cancer with heart failure, particularly among vulnerable populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207