The impact of socioeconomic deprivation on survival in cervical cancer patients - a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Factors that increase the risk of cervical cancer are more frequently seen in socioeconomically deprived patients. Furthermore, socioeconomic deprivation is associated with decreased survival in most cancers, mainly due to an advanced stage at diagnosis for more deprived patients. However, in cervical cancer this association is unclear. Methods: We performed a systematic search of Medline (1946-2018), Embase (1980 u2013 2018), Cinahl (1981 u2013 2018) and the Cochrane Controlled Register of trials to identify studies that reported on the association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival in cervical cancer patients. Included were adult women (age u2265 18 years) diagnosed with primary cervical cancer. Two reviewers independently selected studies and assessed bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. Data extraction was completed using pre-determined forms and summary tables of evidences from the included studies were created.Results: Eight studies were included in this review with a total number of at least 38,811 patients. All eight studies showed that socioeconomic deprivation is associated with poorer survival in cervical cancer patients with five studies confirming this association in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Socioeconomic deprivation seems to be associated with poor survival in cervical cancer, however the impact of confounders such as smoking and obesity is unclear. Further research should focus on the interaction between cervical screening attendance, smoking, stage, obesity, socioeconomic deprivation and survival.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".