No evidence that breast cancer occurs at higher rates among young Arab women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is often thought to occur at a younger age among Arab women based on the mean or median age at diagnosis, or the proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. Objective: To compare age-specific breast cancer incidence rates among women from selected Arab countries with selected high- and middle-income countries. Methods: We examined population-based, age-specific, national or regional breast cancer incidence data for 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States of America, and compared them with data from Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Results: Breast cancer incidence among young women in the selected Arab countries was comparable to, or even lower than, the selected high- and middle-income countries. In contrast to the continued increase in rates observed in the high- and middle-income countries, the rates tended to plateau or decrease among older Arab women. Age-standardized incidence rates were lower than crude rates in the Arab countries. Conclusion: We found no evidence that Arab women are at higher risk of developing breast cancer at a younger age. The high number of cases among them was probably due to the younger population structure. These findings are important for refining breast cancer screening policies in the region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".