MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405811426 · doi:10.1093/jjco/hyae180

Age-standardized mortality-to-incidence ratio for all cancers in the world

2024· article· en· W4405811426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kumiko Saika, Tomohiro Matsuda

Bibliographic record

VenueJapanese Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)CancerFamily medicineCancer incidenceLibrary scienceCenter (category theory)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) is one of indicators that measure patients’ prognosis. The International Agency for Research on Cancer produces GLOBOCAN estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in 185 countries and showed the age-standardized MIRs were published in ‘Global Cancer Observatory’ website [1]. In this site, the age-adjusted MIRs were calculated by dividing the estimated age-adjusted mortality rate in 2022 by the age-adjusted incidence rate in 2022. Although the numerator and denominator of the MIR are actually different patients, it can be considered as an approximation of the proportion of cancer patients who die from cancer, with a higher value indicating a greater contribution to death from the disease (worse prognosis) and a lower value indicating a smaller contribution to death from the disease (better prognosis). To compare the estimated MIRs for all cancers among six areas (Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America, Oceania and Asia), we plotted the age-adjusted MIRs by countries and combined areas in Fig. 1. Age-standardized mortality-to-incidence ratios for all cancers in 2022. In male, MIR in the world was 0.52, which can be interpreted that 52% of the incidence would die in cancer. All countries in Africa and many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have MRIs higher than the 0.52 in the world (dots in the upper portion in the graph above the line), indicating a poor prognosis for cancer. In addition, all countries in Northern America (Canada and the USA), many countries in Europe tend to have a better prognosis than the world as a whole, while Asia and Oceania have larger differences by country. In Asia, among 47 countries, Japan has the lower MIR (0.33), and only three countries (Japan, Israel and the Republic of Korea) have MIRs lower than the world. MIRs in female are lower than those in male in all regions, and the size of MIR by region is essentially the same as that in male. In comparison to the MIR in the world, only that in Latin America and the Caribbean was lower than that in the world for male (better prognosis), while for women it was higher than the world (worse prognosis). Note: Data were extracted from the Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Tomorrow [1]. The figures are prepared by the authors of this article, and the responsibility for their presentation and interpretation lies with the authors of this article. The authoes declare no conflict of interest associated with this article. None declared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapanese Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207