MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Material deprivation, racial inequalities and mortality from female breast, prostate, and cervical neoplasm in the Brazilian adult population: an ecological study

2025· article· en· W4406871416 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Cristina de Oliveira Costa, Jackson Junior, Guilherme Lopes de Oliveira, Dandara de Oliveira Ramos, Rômulo Paes-Sousa

Bibliographic record

VenueCiência & Saúde Coletiva · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographyPopulationMedicineProstateInequalityProstate cancerInternal medicineEnvironmental healthCancerSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article aims to identify the relationship between material deprivation and mortality from breast, cervical, and prostate neoplasms in the Brazilian adult population and the relationship between ethnicity/skin color and material deprivation. This cross-sectional ecological study calculated the mean mortality rate per 100,000 inhabitants, and deaths were standardized by age and gender and redistributed per to ill-defined causes, stratified by age group and ethnicity/skin color. We applied the Negative Binomial model, containing the interaction between ethnicity/skin color and the Brazilian Deprivation Index (IBP). We analyzed 85,903 deaths, and the most prevalent were those due to female breast neoplasms. The risk of death from cervical cancer was 8.5% higher for Black women than white women. In other places, mortality was higher among white people. For all causes, mortality increased with age. There was a significant interaction between ethnicity/skin color and IBP for all causes. Only deaths due to cervical neoplasms increased with higher IBP, while a decline was observed in other causes but was less significant among Black people. The IBP offers a multidimensional view of the socioeconomic conditions of the Brazilian population, allowing a better understanding of how social determinants operate on selected neoplasms.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiência & Saúde ColetivaSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207