Five-year relative survival from prostate, breast, colorectal and lung cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article presents five-year relative survival rates for prostate, breast, colorectal and lung cancer diagnosed in 1992. Provincial variations are also examined. DATA SOURCES: Data are from the Canadian Cancer Registry, the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System, the Canadian Mortality Data Base, and life tables. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Analysis was conducted using the maximum likelihood method of Estève. Provincial rates were standardized to the age distribution of patients diagnosed with the specific cancer. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if the site-specific age-standardized provincial relative survival rates should be regarded as heterogeneous. (National estimates exclude Québec.) MAIN RESULTS: Five-year relative survival rates for ages 15 to 99 were highest for prostate cancer (88%) and lowest for lung cancer (17%, women; 14%, men). Relative survival rates for prostate, breast and male lung cancer differ among provinces. There was little inter-provincial variation in relative survival rates for colorectal 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 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".