Oral cancer screening and socioeconomic status.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if awareness of oral cancer screening correlates with socioeconomic status (SES) and to determine if screening for oral cancer correlates with SES. SETTING: Data were obtained from the 2008 American National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). METHODS: Our primary measure of SES was education; additional measures for SES included income, race, health insurance, and immigration status. We performed a logistic regression analysis, controlling for important demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Awareness of oral cancer screening increases with higher education levels (< grade 9 OR 0.37 [CI 0.29-0.48], grade 9-12 OR 0.53 [CI 0.44-0.65], high school OR 0.68 [CI 0.59-0.77], higher degree OR 1.13 [CI 0.96-1.34]). Similarly, screening for oral cancer increases with higher education levels (< grade 9 OR 0.31 [CI 0.23-0.42], grade 9-12 OR 0.34 [CI 0.26-0.43], high school OR 0.60 [CI 0.52-0.68], higher degree OR 1.41 [CI 1.18-1.67]). We found that race, income, immigration, and health insurance status were statistically significant correlates with oral cancer awareness and screening. CONCLUSIONS: Higher SES individuals are more likely to be aware of and screened for oral cancer. This is problematic because oral cancers are more prevalent in low SES groups. Future awareness and screening campaigns should be directed at vulnerable low SES populations.
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) | 0.000 | 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".