Pleural Mesothelioma Surveillance: Validity of Cases from a Tumour Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pleural mesothelioma is a rare tumour associated with exposure to asbestos fibres. Fewer than than one-quarter of cases registered in the Quebec Tumour Registry (QTR) have been compensated as work-related. While establishing a surveillance system, this led to questioning as to whether there has been over-registration of cases that are not authentic pleural mesotheliomas in the QTR. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether registered cases of pleural mesothelioma could be confirmed. METHODS: A medical chart review was designed to assess the proportion of mesothelioma cases newly registered in the QTR in 2001⁄2002 that could be confirmed. For each registered case, clinical, medical imaging and pathology information were sought and, occasionally, additional immunohistochemistry staining was obtained. Three specialists - a chest physician, a radiologist and a pathologist - reviewed the available information and material, coding each mesothelioma case as to degree of certainty of the mesothelioma diagnosis. RESULTS: The QTR reported 190 incident cases of mesothelioma (81% males) for the period. The specialists classified 81% of charts as 'certain⁄probable' or 'possible' mesotheliomas, 8% as 'unlikely to be a mesothelioma' and 11% as 'not a mesothelioma'. After excluding chart summaries of unsatisfactory quality, 87% to 88% of the charts were classified as 'certain⁄probable' or 'possible' mesotheliomas, and 9% to 11% were still considered 'not a mesothelioma'. CONCLUSION: Tumour registry data are a valid source of information for mesothelioma surveillance. While there is some over-registration of mesothelioma cases in the QTR, a significant majority of registered cases appeared to be authentic. Over-registration cannot explain the greater proportion of cases that were not compensated.
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) | 0.002 | 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".