MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406538394 · doi:10.2196/59882

Analyzing Geospatial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening Among Populations in the United States: Machine Learning Approach

2025· article· en· W4406538394 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soheil Hashtarkhani, Yiwang Zhou, Fekede Asefa Kumsa, Shelley I. White‐Means, David L. Schwartz, Arash Shaban‐Nejad

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesHealth Science Center, University of TennesseeNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusGeospatial analysisBreast cancerBreast cancer screeningDemographyGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicineCancerMammographySociologyPopulationCartographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Breast cancer screening plays a pivotal role in early detection and subsequent effective management of the disease, impacting patient outcomes and survival rates. Objective: This study aims to assess breast cancer screening rates nationwide in the United States and investigate the impact of social determinants of health on these screening rates. Methods: Data on mammography screening at the census tract level for 2018 and 2020 were collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We developed a large-scale dataset of social determinants of health, comprising 13 variables for 72,337 census tracts. Spatial analysis employing Getis-Ord Gi statistics was used to identify clusters of high and low breast cancer screening rates. To evaluate the influence of these social determinants, we implemented a random forest model, with the aim of comparing its performance to linear regression and support vector machine models. The models were evaluated using R2 and root mean squared error metrics. Shapley Additive Explanations values were subsequently used to assess the significance of variables and direction of their influence. Results: Geospatial analysis revealed elevated screening rates in the eastern and northern United States, while central and midwestern regions exhibited lower rates. The random forest model demonstrated superior performance, with an R2=64.53 and root mean squared error of 2.06, compared to linear regression and support vector machine models. Shapley Additive Explanations values indicated that the percentage of the Black population, the number of mammography facilities within a 10-mile radius, and the percentage of the population with at least a bachelor's degree were the most influential variables, all positively associated with mammography screening rates. Conclusions: These findings underscore the significance of social determinants and the accessibility of mammography services in explaining the variability of breast cancer screening rates in the United States, emphasizing the need for targeted policy interventions in areas with relatively lower screening rates.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207