Recent trends in prostate cancer mortality show a continuous decrease in several countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening was introduced to detect prostate cancer at an early stage and to reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. Until results from clinical trials are available, the efficacy of PSA screening in reducing prostate cancer mortality can be estimated by surveillance of prostate cancer mortality trends. Our study analyzes recent trends in prostate cancer mortality in 38 countries. We used the IARC-WHO cancer mortality database and performed joinpoint analysis to examine prostate cancer mortality trends and identified 3 patterns. In USA, and to a lesser extent in Germany, Switzerland, Canada, France, Italy and Spain, prostate cancer-specific mortality decreased to a level lower than before the introduction of PSA screening. In Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Finland, The Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom, Hungary, Slovakia, Israel, Singapore, Sweden and Portugal, mortality from prostate cancer decreased but rates remain higher than before the introduction of PSA screening. Prostate cancer mortality continued to increase in Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Belarus, Ukraine, Russian Federation, Romania, Poland, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Mexico, Japan, China Hong Kong and the Republic of Korea. The trends in prostate cancer mortality rates in examined countries suggest that PSA screening may be effective in reducing mortality from prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".