The rural disadvantage – prostate cancer outcomes of rural and urban patients over 25 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is a common malignancy among men, with disparities based on the geographic location. This study aims to evaluate long-term trends in prostate cancer outcomes among rural and urban populations within a universal health care system, providing insights into the persistent disparities in cancer-specific mortality despite supposed equal access to medical coverage. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Alberta Cancer Registry (January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2022) and the Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative (APCaRI) (July 1, 2014 to June 7, 2024). There were 45,602,119 person-years from the Alberta Cancer Registry and 8932 men from APCaRI. The exposure was the place of residence, categorized as urban or rural, based on postal codes at the time of diagnosis and death. The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality. FINDINGS: Rural men were diagnosed at an older age (66.7 vs. 68.9, p<0.001) and had higher age-adjusted prostate cancer-specific mortality compared to urban men (52.0 vs. 37.6 deaths per 100,000, p<0.001). Though both groups showed improvements over time, rural areas consistently had higher age-adjusted mortality rates. Despite a 38% relative increase in prostate cancer specific mortality, rural patients had minimal, though statistically significant differences in PSA (9% vs. 11% >20, p = 0.008), stage (40% vs. 46% T2-T4, p<0.001) and Gleason Grade Group (11% vs. 14% ≥4, p<0.001) at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals that rural men experienced significantly worse prostate cancer outcomes compared to urban men. These findings highlight the need for targeted health care interventions to improve access to care in rural areas.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".