MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409329675 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.0473

National Cancer System Characteristics and Global Pan-Cancer Outcomes

2025· article· en· W4409329675 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Christopher Dee, James Fan Wu, Erin Jay G. Feliciano, Frederic Ivan L. Ting, Jonas Willmann, Frances Dominique V. Ho, Bhav Jain, Urvish Jain, Jenny Chen, Fábio Ynoe de Moraes, Nancy Y. Lee, Puneeth Iyengar, Paul L. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineDemographyPopulationPer capitaHuman Development IndexGross domestic productCancerGross national incomeGerontologyEnvironmental healthHuman development (humanity)Economic growthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Approximately 29.9 million cancer cases and 15.3 million deaths are anticipated by 2040 globally, necessitating cancer system strengthening. A greater understanding of health system factors that can be leveraged to improve cancer control may guide health system planning. Objective: To evaluate predictors of improved cancer outcomes globally. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pan-cancer ecological study used the most recent available national health system metrics and cancer statistics, spanning the breadth of global income levels across 185 countries. Estimates of age-standardized mortality to incidence ratios were derived from GLOBOCAN 2022 for patients with cancer of all ages. The analysis took place on November 27, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health spending as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP), physicians per 1000 population, nurses and midwives per 1000 population, surgical workforce per 1000 population, GDP per capita, Universal Health Coverage (UHC) service coverage index, availability of pathology services, human development index, gender inequality index (GII), radiotherapy centers per 1000 population, and out-of-pocket expenditure as percentage of current health expenditure were collected. The association between the mortality to incidence ratio (MIR) and each metric was evaluated using univariable linear regressions (α = .0045), which were used to construct multivariable models (α = .05). Variation inflation factor allowed exclusion of variables with significant multicollinearity. R2 measured goodness of fit. Results: On univariable analysis, all metrics were significantly associated with MIR of cancer (P < .001 for all), including UHC index (β, -0.0076 [95% CI, -0.0083 to -0.0068]), GDP per capita (β, -5.10 × 10-6 [95% CI, -5.75 × 10-6 to -4.46 × 10-6]), clinical and workforce capacity, radiotherapy capacity (β, -88.25 [95% CI, -100.43 to -76.06]), and gender inequality index (β, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.57-0.70]). After including metrics significant on univariable analysis and correcting for multicollinearity, on multivariable analysis, greater UHC index and GDP per capita were independently associated with lower (improved) MIR for cancer. The multivariable model had R2 of 0.87. On multivariable analysis stratified by sex, greater UHC index and greater GDP per capita were independently associated with improved MIR for all cancers. R2 for the multivariable models was 0.87 for females and 0.85 for males. Conclusions: This study found that global health system metrics related to progress toward universal health care, greater health care spending and GDP per capita, strengthened clinical workforce and capacity, and increased gender equity were associated with improved pan-cancer outcomes at a population level on univariable analysis. The degree of UHC and GDP per capita were independently associated with improved cancer outcomes in multivariable models with good explanatory power. These exploratory findings merit further validation and may guide health system planning and prioritization.

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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations20
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207