Frequency of Missing <scp>TNM</scp> Stage Data for Adults With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities in a Provincial Cancer Registry—A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual or developmental disability (IDD) are at higher risk for incomplete cancer staging. AIM: To compare unknown stage data between those with and without IDD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to administrative health data between 2007 and 2019. RESULTS: Adults with IDD diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer were 1.94 (95% CI 1.52-2.47), 1.90 (95% CI 1.63-2.21), and 2.17 (95% CI 1.86-2.54) times more likely to have unknown cancer stage at diagnosis, relative to those without IDD. DISCUSSION: The absence of stage data has person-level and population-level implications. At the individual level, if stage data are not simply missing from the registry but reflect incomplete or absent diagnostic or staging procedures, this may represent barriers for adults with IDD in receiving curative treatment. At the population level, research using inaccurate or incomplete stage data may lead to unrepresentative health and social system policy decisions. CONCLUSION: A better understanding of the cancer diagnostic interval for adults with IDD is needed to develop 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".