Age-specific lung cancer incidence trends in Canada from 1992 to 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer incidence has historically been higher in males than females, but these rates have been converging. Here we detail the trends in age-specific lung cancer incidence in Canada from 1992 to 2022. METHODS: Lung cancer incidence data from 1992 to 2022 by sex and age were obtained from Statistics Canada. We report lung cancer incidence rates and annual percent changes (APC) based on Joinpoint Regression. Birth cohort effects are presented as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Lung cancer incidence has decreased among males aged 35 or above with the largest decreases occurring among those 65 or above. Females under 55 showed similar decreasing trends. However, females 55 or above show stable or increasing incidence rates until around 2017 when rates began decreasing significantly. Birth cohort analysis showed males born after 1957 have lower risk compared to those born at of before 1957. Females risk peaked in 1943-47 and the risk after 1957 slowly returned to early twentieth century levels. CONCLUSION: The sex difference in lung cancer incidence continues to narrow. Lung cancer rates among males have declined for decades, while the decline among females is more recent and incidence is higher for females at younger ages for the first time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".