Gen X, Millennials Face Higher Risk for Rare Appendix Cancer
The incidence of appendiceal adenocarcinoma in the United States more than tripled among those born in 1980 and rose more than fourfold among those born in 1985 compared with a cohort born in 1945, a study found. Greater recognition of appendix cancer as distinct from colon cancer could partly explain the results, but generational differences in exposures affecting cancer risk are also possible, the researchers said.
METHODOLOGY:
A retrospective cohort study analyzed 4858 cases of pathologically confirmed primary appendiceal adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 1975 and 2019 in patients aged 20 years or older from eight population-based cancer registries in the United States.
Researchers used data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program to examine age-specific incidence rates across overlapping birth cohorts from 1891 to 1999.
The analysis included four histologic subtypes: Mucinous (1840 cases), nonmucinous (1428 cases), goblet cell adenocarcinomas (1273 cases), and signet ring cell carcinomas (317 cases).
Age-specific incidence rates were calculated per 100,000 persons in 5-year periods from 1975 to 2019, with the 1945 birth cohort serving as the reference group.
TAKEAWAY:
Compared with the 1945 reference cohort, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for the 1980 birth cohort was 3.41 (95% CI, 2.54-4.56).
For the 1985 cohort, the IRR was 4.62 (95% CI, 3.12-6.82).
Goblet cell adenocarcinomas showed the most pronounced increase among histologic subtypes.
IN PRACTICE:
'Birth cohort effects have also been reported for colon, rectal, and gastric cancer, suggesting that both shared and distinct risk factors may contribute to gastrointestinal carcinogenesis,' the researchers wrote. 'These results support the need for histology-specific investigations of appendiceal adenocarcinoma, as well as increased education and awareness of appendiceal adenocarcinomas among healthcare providers and the public.'
SOURCE:
Andreana N. Holowatyj, PhD, with Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, in Nashville, Tennessee, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on June 10 in Annals of Internal Medicine .
LIMITATIONS:
Appendix cancer had been treated as colon cancer until relatively recently, the researchers noted. But the increase in goblet cell carcinomas, which typically only occur in the appendix, 'suggests that misclassification of appendiceal versus colon cancer is unlikely to explain our findings,' Holowatyj's group wrote.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Appendix Cancer Pseudomyxoma Peritonei Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
23 minutes ago
- CBS News
Chicago firefighter recovering from injuries he suffered competing in triathlon in San Francisco
A Chicago firefighter was in the ICU Monday after he was injured while competing in a race last week. Jose Perez was seriously hurt during the swimming portion of the San Francisco Escape from Alcatraz Triathlon. Perez underwent emergency spinal surgery and was recovering Monday. The Chicago Fire Department Foundation said Perez's family is now facing mounting medical bills. They are asking for donations to help cover medical costs. As of Monday evening, a total of $62,842 had been raised for Perez. The organizer of the GoFundMe said he successfully underwent spinal decompression surgery and regained movement in his hands and feet.
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Intelligence Illusion: What Apple's AI Study Reveals About Reasoning
Concept of the diversity of talents and know-how, with profiles of male and female characters ... More associated with different brains. The gleaming veneer of artificial intelligence has captivated the world, with large language models producing eloquent responses that often seem indistinguishable from human thought. Yet beneath this polished surface lies a troubling reality that Apple's latest research has brought into sharp focus: eloquence is not intelligence, and imitation is not understanding. Apple's new study, titled "The Illusion of Thinking," has sent shockwaves through the AI community by demonstrating that even the most sophisticated reasoning models fundamentally lack genuine cognitive abilities. This revelation validates what prominent researchers like Meta's Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun have been arguing for years—that current AI systems are sophisticated pattern-matching machines rather than thinking entities. The Apple research team's findings are both methodical and damning. By creating controlled puzzle environments that could precisely manipulate complexity while maintaining logical consistency, they revealed three distinct performance regimes in Large Reasoning Models . In low-complexity tasks, standard models actually outperformed their supposedly superior reasoning counterparts. Medium-complexity problems showed marginal benefits from additional "thinking" processes. But most tellingly, both model types experienced complete collapse when faced with high-complexity tasks. What makes these findings particularly striking is the counter-intuitive scaling behavior the researchers observed. Rather than improving with increased complexity as genuine intelligence would, these models showed a peculiar pattern: their reasoning effort would increase up to a certain point, then decline dramatically despite having adequate computational resources. This suggests that the models weren't actually reasoning at all— they were following learned patterns that broke down when confronted with novel challenges. The study exposed fundamental limitations in exact computation, revealing that these systems fail to use explicit algorithms and reason inconsistently across similar puzzles. When the veneer of sophisticated language is stripped away, what remains is a sophisticated but ultimately hollow mimicry of thought. These findings align perfectly with warnings that Yann LeCun and other leading AI researchers have been voicing for years. LeCun has consistently argued that current LLMs will be largely obsolete within five years, not because they'll be replaced by better versions of the same technology, but because they represent a fundamentally flawed approach to artificial intelligence. The core issue isn't technical prowess — it's conceptual. These systems don't understand; they pattern-match. They don't reason; they interpolate from training data. They don't think; they generate statistically probable responses based on massive datasets. The sophistication of their output masks the absence of genuine comprehension, creating what researchers now recognize as an elaborate illusion of intelligence. This disconnect between appearance and reality has profound implications for how we evaluate and deploy AI systems. When we mistake fluency for understanding, we risk making critical decisions based on fundamentally flawed reasoning processes. The danger isn't just technological—it's epistemological. Perhaps most unsettling is how closely this AI limitation mirrors a persistent human cognitive bias. Just as we've been deceived by AI's articulate responses, we consistently overvalue human confidence and extroversion, often mistaking verbal facility for intellectual depth. The overconfidence bias represents one of the most pervasive flaws in human judgment, where individuals' subjective confidence in their abilities far exceeds their objective accuracy. This bias becomes particularly pronounced in social and professional settings, where confident, extroverted individuals often command disproportionate attention and credibility. Research consistently shows that we tend to equate confidence with competence, volume with value, and articulateness with intelligence. The extroverted individual who speaks first and most frequently in meetings often shapes group decisions, regardless of the quality of their ideas. The confident presenter who delivers polished but superficial analysis frequently receives more positive evaluation than the thoughtful introvert who offers deeper insights with less theatrical flair. This psychological tendency creates a dangerous feedback loop. People with low ability often overestimate their competence (the Dunning-Kruger effect), while those with genuine expertise may express appropriate uncertainty about complex issues. The result is a systematic inversion of credibility, where those who know the least speak with the greatest confidence, while those who understand the most communicate with appropriate nuance and qualification. The parallel between AI's eloquent emptiness and our bias toward confident communication reveals something profound about the nature of intelligence itself. Both phenomena demonstrate how easily we conflate the appearance of understanding with its substance. Both show how sophisticated communication can mask fundamental limitations in reasoning and comprehension. Consider the implications for organizational decision-making, educational assessment, and social dynamics. If we consistently overvalue confident presentation over careful analysis—whether from AI systems or human colleagues—we systematically degrade the quality of our collective reasoning. We create environments where performance theater takes precedence over genuine problem-solving. The Apple study's revelation that AI reasoning models fail when faced with true complexity mirrors how overconfident individuals often struggle with genuinely challenging problems while maintaining their persuasive veneer. Both represent sophisticated forms of intellectual imposture that can persist precisely because they're so convincing on the surface. Understanding these limitations—both artificial and human—opens the door to more authentic evaluation of intelligence and reasoning. True intelligence isn't characterized by unwavering confidence or eloquent presentation. Instead, it manifests in several key ways: Genuine intelligence embraces uncertainty when dealing with complex problems. It acknowledges limitations rather than concealing them. It demonstrates consistent reasoning across different contexts rather than breaking down when patterns become unfamiliar. Most importantly, it shows genuine understanding through the ability to adapt principles to novel situations. In human contexts, this means looking beyond charismatic presentation to evaluate the underlying quality of reasoning. It means creating space for thoughtful, measured responses rather than rewarding only quick, confident answers. It means recognizing that the most profound insights often come wrapped in appropriate humility rather than absolute certainty. For AI systems, it means developing more rigorous evaluation frameworks that test genuine understanding rather than pattern matching. It means acknowledging current limitations rather than anthropomorphizing sophisticated text generation. It means building systems that can genuinely reason rather than simply appearing to do so. The convergence of Apple's AI findings with psychological research on human biases offers valuable guidance for navigating our increasingly complex world. Whether evaluating AI systems or human colleagues, we must learn to distinguish between performance and competence, between eloquence and understanding. This requires cultivating intellectual humility – the recognition that genuine intelligence often comes with appropriate uncertainty, that the most confident voices aren't necessarily the most credible, and that true understanding can be distinguished from sophisticated mimicry through careful observation and testing. To distinguish intelligence from imitation in an AI-infused environment we need to invest in hybrid intelligence, which arises from the complementarity of natural and artificial intelligences – anchored in the strength and limitations of both.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Secretary Of HHS Kennedy Fires Entire CDC's Vaccine Advisory Committee
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is making good on his promise to radically reshape the vaccine policy landscape as he ousts the entire Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. In a press release issued by the Department of HHS on June 9th, Kennedy says he's doing this in order to restore the public's trust in vaccine science in America. It's unknown who Kennedy will hire to replace committee members, but it's possible they may share his skeptical views of vaccines. In turn, this could have the effect of increasing the public's vaccine hesitancy. ACIP advises the director of the CDC on which vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used; for example, recommending which groups of people ought to be vaccinated, at what doses and when. ACIP's guidance is not binding, though CDC almost always follows it and provides recommendations to the public on what is to be included in the United States adult and childhood immunization schedules. Neither the Secretary of HHS nor the CDC director can unilaterally ban vaccines. But they can alter the CDC's messaging, fire and hire ACIP committee members and revise vaccination scheduling. Moreover, the Secretary of HHS together with heads of agencies under his oversight can pursue changes in guidance that restructure regulatory pathways for vaccine development and revise recommendations to the public on who should get vaccinated. In a major policy shift last month, Food and Drug Administration officials proposed requiring new clinical trial research with respect to the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy people under 65, including pregnant women, before issuing an updated approval for a broader population. And we observed a preview of the new FDA approach when the agency made an unusual decision in May to limit the approval of the nation's only non-mRNA coronavirus vaccine, Novavax's nuvaxovid, for use only in adults 65 and older or those 12 to 64 who have at least one health problem that puts them at increased risk from COVID-19. And on May 31st, Moderna won approval for its latest COVID-19 vaccine with a similar set of limits. To be indicated for a broader population, the FDA plans to require that vaccine makers conduct booster trials to demonstrate effectiveness in people under 65 or without certain risks. These trials could take a year to complete, according to a STAT report. As such, it's not something that can be accomplished prior to the autumn, even if Novavax, Pfizer, or Moderna, wished to pursue this pathway. Changes are also occurring at CDC in terms of its messaging on vaccines. While all the standard childhood and adult vaccines are still on the website, the messaging in some instances incorporates more of an 'informed consent' approach than a recommendation. Informed consent is the principle that people should be notified of all the risks, as well as benefits, of any medical intervention they receive or any therapeutic they are prescribed. All of the changes we're seeing shouldn't come as a surprise. Kennedy's vaccine-skeptic views are well-known. And while he told the podcaster Lex Fridman in 2023 that some vaccines 'are probably averting more problems than they're causing,' he also maintained that 'there's no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.' In March, he commissioned a large-scale study to investigate debunked theories that link autism to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. And, amid an outbreak of measles this year that started in Texas and spread to surrounding states and cost the lives of three people, Kennedy appeared at times to downplay its severity. Kennedy has also been outspoken about the existing organizational framework within his department, in which he says that with respect to vaccines there are conflicts of interest. In announcing today's purge of the entire ACIP committee, Kennedy cited the pharmaceutical industry's close relationship with government agencies and ACIP that advises them. But it's unclear what Kennedy means when current ACIP members include academics, a chief medical officer of a community health center, a state public health higher-up and the owner of a family medicine practice. Kennedy defends himself as merely wanting placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure and no more strict vaccine mandates. However, the vaccines he criticizes are typically subject to such clinical trials. Furthermore, arguably the mandates Kennedy opposes, which have been in place since the 1960s, have helped to contribute to a dramatic decline in childhood infectious diseases. From smallpox inoculations—which began in the late 18th century and ended when the disease was eradicated in the 1970s—to mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, polio and measles immunizations, vaccinations have saved millions of lives and prevented crippling and life-threatening illnesses from occurring. To illustrate, mass vaccination programs with single or combination—measles, mumps and rubella—shots began in the 1960s and quickly suppressed the spread of measles in most developed countries. The measles vaccine is 'sterilizing,' which means it not only prevents illness, but also transmission. The American public is already increasingly vaccine-hesitant around standard childhood immunizations. This is likely to lead to more outbreaks and preventable severe illness and death. Should Kennedy appoint like-minded vaccine skeptics to the ACIP committee, that could undermine the public's trust in vaccines even further.
