Breast cancer incidence and neighbourhood income.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In developed countries, women of higher socioeconomic status often have higher breast cancer incidence rates, compared with women of lower socioeconomic status. DATA AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the Canadian Cancer Registry for the 229,955 cases of adult female invasive breast cancer diagnosed from 1992 through 2004. Postal code at diagnosis was used to determine neighbourhood income quintile. Breast cancer incidence was examined by year, region, age and neighbourhood income quintile. Census data for 1991 on children ever born and British Columbia data for 2006 on first-time attendance at mammography screening were analyzed by neighbourhood income quintile. RESULTS: Residence in the lowest as opposed to the highest neighbourhood income quintile was associated with a 15% lower risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer. Higher income levels were associated with lower parity in 1991 and a higher prevalence of first-time screening mammography in British Columbia in 2006. INTERPRETATION: Canadian data support an association between the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer and neighbourhood income quintile. Parity and mammography screening may account for some differences in incidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".