Cancer incidence, mortality and survival trends in Canada, 1970–2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Monitoring cancer trends can help evaluate progress in cancer control while reinforcing prevention activities. This analysis examines long-term trends for selected cancers in Canada using data from national databases. METHODS: Annual changes in trends for age-standardized incidence and mortality rates between 1970 and 2007 were examined by sex for 1) all cancers combined, 2) the four most common cancers (prostate, breast, lung, colorectal) and 3) cancers that demonstrate the most recent notable changes in trend. Five-year relative survival for 1992-2007 was also calculated. RESULTS: Incidence rates for all primary cancer cases combined increased 0.9% per year in males and 0.8% per year in females over the study period, with varying degrees of increase for melanoma, thyroid, liver, prostate, kidney, colorectal, lung, breast, and bladder cancers and decrease for larynx, oral, stomach and cervical cancers. Mortality rates were characterized by significant declines for all cancers combined and for most cancers examined except for melanoma and female lung cancer. The largest improvements in cancer survival were for prostate, liver, colorectal and kidney cancers. While the overall trends in mortality rates and survival point to notable successes in cancer control, the increasing trend in incidence rates for some cancers emphasize the need for continued efforts in prevention.
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) | 0.001 | 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".