ReviewScientific reports2024
Comparing the current short-term cancer incidence prediction models in Brazil with state-of-the-art time-series models.
Review in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and forecasting methods to estimate number of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic literature review.Population health metrics · 2025Pooled it
- Fifteen-year trends in cancer incidence and mortality among older adults aged 65 years and older in Martinique, a Caribbean population-based registry study, 2008-2022.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The World Health Organization has highlighted that cancer was the second-highest cause of death in 2019. This research aims to present the current forecasting techniques found in the literature, applied to predict time-series cancer incidence and then, compare these results with the current methodology adopted by the Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA) in Brazil. A set of univariate time-series approaches is proposed to aid decision-makers in monitoring and organizing cancer prevention and control actions. Additionally, this can guide oncological research towards more accurate estimates that align with the expected demand. Forecasting techniques were applied to real data from seven types of cancer in a Brazilian district. Each method was evaluated by comparing its fit with real data using the root mean square error, and we also assessed the quality of noise to identify biased models. Notably, three methods proposed in this research have never been applied to cancer prediction before. The data were collected from the INCA website, and the forecast methods were implemented using the R language. Conducting a literature review, it was possible to draw comparisons previous works worldwide to illustrate that cancer prediction is often focused on breast and lung cancers, typically utilizing a limited number of time-series models to find the best fit for each case. Additionally, in comparison to the current method applied in Brazil, it has been shown that employing more generalized forecast techniques can provide more reliable predictions. By evaluating the noise in the current method, this research shown that the existing prediction model is biased toward two of the studied cancers Comparing error results between the mentioned approaches and the current technique, it has been shown that the current method applied by INCA underperforms in six out of seven types of cancer tested. Moreover, this research identified that the current method can produce a biased prediction for two of the seven cancers evaluated. Therefore, it is suggested that the methods evaluated in this work should be integrated into the INCA cancer forecast methodology to provide reliable predictions for Brazilian healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and oncological researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.