MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B021: Survival differences between early onset (< 50 years) and average onset (≥ 50 years) colorectal cancer among African Americans in metropolitan Detroit

2025· article· en· W4417201242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Grace J. Lee, Siddhi Patil, Kristen S. Purrington, Mei‐Chin Hsieh, Julie J. Ruterbusch, Angela S. Wenzlaff, Stephanie S. Pandolfi, Ann G. Schwartz, Elena M. Stoffel, Laura S. Rozek

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerEpidemiologyProportional hazards modelCancerMetropolitan areaSurvival analysisSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We assessed the differences in overall survival (OS) by age at colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis among African Americans (AA) in Metropolitan Detroit. These data were collected as a part of the Detroit Research on Cancer Survivors (ROCS) and the Disparities and Cancer Epidemiology (DANCE) studies. We analyzed data from 491 AA participants newly diagnosed with invasive CRC from 2013 to 2021 within the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System catchment area. Participants (n = 491) completed written, online, or interviewer-assisted surveys and were categorized as early onset (EO: <50 years, n = 64) and average onset (AO: ≥ 50 years, n = 427) based on age at CRC diagnosis. Demographic, clinical, pathological, dietary, physical activity, smoking and alcohol variables at time of enrollment were assessed among the two subgroups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to produce crude and site- and stage-stratified survival curves. Cox proportional hazards models were used to model survival outcomes among early versus average onset AA CRC participants adjusting for insurance type, primary site, and SEER stage (local, regional, distant). The average age of onset was 43.6 (range 28 – 49) and 63.7 (range 50 - 84) for EO and AO cases respectively. EO cases were more likely to be diagnosed at distant stages (25.4% vs 15.6%, p<0.02) and less likely to be diagnosed with a right-sided tumor (35.9% vs 46.8%, p>0.05) although this did not reach statistical significance. EO cases were also more likely to have private insurance (46.9% vs 23.2%, p<0.0001) and report never smoking (73.4% vs 49.4%, p<0.002). EO CRC cases had higher mortality overall (HR = 1.32, 95% CI 0.82 – 2.12). While no mortality differences were detected by age for local stage CRC, mortality was higher for EO cancers for both regional (HR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.28 – 3.08) and distant (HR = 10.18, 95% CI 6.50 – 15.93) stage CRC after adjustment for site and insurance. Within-stage differences in mortality between EO and AO cases may be indicating more aggressive disease or differences in treatment in AA EO compared to AO CRC patients. Our ongoing analyses address tumor phenotypes and other factors that may be associated with more aggressive disease. Citation Format: Grace J. Lee, Siddhi Patil, Kristen S. Purrington, Mei-Chin Hsieh, Julie Ruterbusch, Angela S. Wenzlaff, Stephanie Pandolfi, Ann Schwartz, Elena Stoffel, Laura Rozek. Survival differences between early onset (< 50 years) and average onset (≥ 50 years) colorectal cancer among African Americans in metropolitan Detroit [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: The Rise in Early-Onset Cancers—Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities; 2025 Dec 10-13; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(23_Suppl):Abstract nr B021.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207