MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S3196 Analyzing Trends in Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Mortality Rates in the United States From 1999-2020

2025· article· en· W4417248955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huda Ahmed, Umar Ali Khan, Bisher Sawaf, Ahmad Shahid, Amine Rakab, Muhammad Hamza Shuja, Amin Abu Hejleh, Syed Hasan Shuja

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortality rateDeath certificateEtiologyCancerPacific islandersPopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)Epidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers account for approximately a quarter of global cancer cases, with one-third occurring in the upper tract (esophagus, stomach, duodenum). Their shared etiology warrants a collective mortality trend analysis to identify vulnerable populations. This study analyzes mortality trends in upper GI cancer mortality in the United States from 1999-2020. Methods: We utilized death certificate data from the CDC WONDER database spanning 1999-2020, focusing on upper GI tract cancers using ICD-10 codes: C15.0-C15.5, C15.8-C15.9, C16.0-C16.6, C16.8-C16.9, and C17.0. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population were calculated and stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, age group, geographic region, and urbanization. Joinpoint regression analysis identified statistically significant changes in temporal trends, expressed as Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC). Results: A total of 559,403 deaths from upper GI cancers were recorded in the U.S. from 1999 to 2020, with an overall decline in mortality (AAPC -1.58%). Men exhibited a substantially higher mortality rate than women (mean AAMR 33.93 vs 11.42) and a slower decline in rates (AAPC -1.62% vs -1.96%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black individuals had the highest AAMRs (21.6) but also experienced the steepest decline (AAPC -3.51%). Other racial/ethnic groups had the following AAMRs: NH American Indian/Alaska Native (79.5), NH Asian/Pacific Islander (22.21), Hispanic (20.86), and NH White (20.43). Regionally, the Northeast had the highest burden (AAMR 22.8) but also the greatest decline (AAPC -2.02%), while the Midwest saw the slowest decrease (AAPC -1.15%). Urban areas had higher AAMRs in 1999 (25.92) compared to rural areas (23.34) but experienced a sharper decline (AAPC -1.74% vs -0.80%), resulting in lower mortality in urban areas by 2020 (20.1 vs 21.45). State-level analysis showed the District of Columbia (AAMR 28.62), Alaska (25.51), Rhode Island (24.29), Maine (24.16), Massachusetts (23.93), and Louisiana (23.81) ranked in the top 90th percentile for mortality burden. Conclusion: This study found a sustained decline in upper GI cancer mortality, reflecting advancements in preventative medicine, screening modalities, and targeted treatment. However, persistent disparities remain among men, African Americans, and rural populations. This highlights the need for tailored public health approaches and healthcare reforms to better reach high-risk groups and enhance outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→