Yogyakarta Pediatric Cancer Registry: an international collaborative project of University Gadjah Mada, University of Saskatchewan, and the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In July 2001, a 'twinning' project was undertaken between University Gadjah Mada, Indonesia, and the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, Canada to create a computerised Pediatric Cancer Registry at Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta city. OBJECTIVES: To analyse information from the Yogyakarta Pediatric Cancer Registry (YPCR) in order to i) determine the prevalence of pediatric cancers in Yogyakarta Special Region and, ii) compare the demographics of pediatric malignancies in the Special Region (population: 3.3 million), with those of the Saskatchewan Cancer Registry in the province of Saskatchewan (population: 1 million). METHODOLOGY: In May 2001, a computer dedicated to the YPCR was installed at Sardjito Hospital. Bilingual (English/Indonesian) data capture forms were developed for data extraction from hospital health records. Data items were then entered into a data base using the Statistical Package For Social Sciences (SPSS) program. Two projects were initiated: i) a prospective study from 2000-2009 of pediatric cancer cases from the YPCR, and ii) a comparison of demographics from both Cancer Registries during the time period 1996-2003. Comparative data were obtained for age, sex, diagnoses, and referral patterns. Results were analysed using the SPSS software program. RESULTS: i) In the 10 year prospective study, 1,124 pediatriccancer cases were accrued in the Yogyakarta Registry, the majority being in the age group 0-5 years. Male:female: 7:1. Leukemias were the most common diagnosis, followed by retinoblastoma and neuroblastoma. The majority of patients (68%) were referred from outside the catchment area of Yogyakarta Special Region. ii) In the 8 year archival comparative analysis, the most striking contrasts were a higher proportion of children with retinoblastoma and negligible numbers of pediatric brain tumors in the Yogyakarta Registry. CONCLUSION: This is the first published report of a computerised pediatric cancer registry in Indonesia. The differences in diagnostic frequencies noted above may, in part, be due to comparisons between the population-based Saskatchewan Cancer Registry versus the hospital-based Yogyakarta Pediatric Cancer Registry. The contrasts in demographics are multifactorial, and require further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".