This article kind of made a mess of the numbers. At one point it suggests the mortality rate increased, but that’s not what the actual research shows.

From OG article: “Our study showed that the global morbidity of early-onset cancer increased from 1990 to 2019, while mortality and DALYs slightly decreased”

https://bmjoncology.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000049

The vast majority of the raw numbers increasing is because of the word population going from 5.3 billion to 7.75 billion in that same time. The next cause does seem to be diagnostic ability, especially when looking at what cancers saw the biggest increase.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual number when speaking relative to population growth would be:

180% / (7.75 Billion / 5.3 Billion) = 123.1%

So it's actually only a 23% increase, relatively.

[–] idunnololz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article is so misleading.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah. The unfortunate truth about science news reporting is that usually it's not sensational, so they need to play things up for clicks and ad revenue. A lot of the time it ends up in somewhat misleading semi-truths like this.

[–] legios@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

[–] corvus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

That's correct.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the argument they're making is that detecting that a death is caused by cancer is probably not an advanced affair requiring new diagnostic technology.

Personally, I think it's an interesting question, given that it stands to reason that cancer, by the time it has caused death, should be pretty easily detectable in any sort of autopsy.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A post-mortem is not what most people think of when talking about cancer diagnostics.

[–] lte678@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, the article refers to both :)

I think you'd be right about the "number of diagnoses" statement in the title, but I think the discussion is about the deaths due to cancer, which have also increased and would not have as strong of a correlation for the reasons others mentioned

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 5 points 1 year ago

But that's directly related. People used to die when "catching a cold". We call that lung cancer nowadays. Same thing with many other branches of cancer.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How many people are getting autopsies in rural Afghanistan or India?

[–] sxan@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

Even in the US, autopsies are not always performed. Ima quote WebMD because I'm bone idle:

Although laws vary, nearly all states call for an autopsy when someone dies in a suspicious, unusual, or unnatural way.

Many states have one done when a person dies without a doctor present. Twenty-seven states require it if the cause of death is suspected to be from a public health threat, such as a fast-spreading disease or tainted food.

According to a 2012 DOJ report, only 8.5% of US deaths result in autopsy.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean sure. But the data is likely comparative and can be looked at just within countries that have been getting autopsies since the 90s.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And what is the stat in those countries?