MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2003990617 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.disp-11-a36

Abstract A36: The relationship between modifiable environmental risk factors and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

2011· review· en· W2003990617 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Jeavana Sritharan, Ken McFarlan, Otto Sánchez

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2011
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNutritional Studies and Diet
Établissements canadiensLakeridge HealthOntario Tech University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)MedicineCancerEnvironmental healthCauses of cancerEpidemiologyRisk factorDemographyGerontologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in Canada with an estimated 8, 900 deaths per year. The province of Ontario currently has the highest estimated number of deaths from colorectal cancer. Within Ontario, there are prevalent disparities of cancer incidence between communities. Colorectal cancer incidence rates range between >65 new cases per 100, 000 people in communities with higher incidence rates and 45 new cases per 100, 000 people in communities with lower incidence rates. These diverging rates of colorectal cancer have not been studied in relation to modifiable environmental risk factors. As an initial step in assessing these types of risk factors, we are undertaking a systematic review in order to examine current epidemiological evidence on the effects of modifiable environmental risk factors in colorectal cancer incidence. A community based participatory study, as a second step following the systematic review, is currently underway as a case control study among the community groups that present the highest and lowest colorectal cancer incidence rates. The aim of this study is to conduct a synthesis of all primary studies that examine any modifiable environmental risk factors and colorectal cancer using systematic review methodology. We hypothesize that modifiable environmental risk factors are partially responsible for regional colorectal cancer incidence disparities. Seven categories pre-determined for the case control study are also being used for the systematic review as they were found to be the most common modifiable environmental risk factors associated with colorectal cancer in the literature. The categories are air pollution, alcohol, ionizing radiation, metal toxins, occupational exposure, pesticides/organochlorines, and smoking/tobacco. A screening inclusion tool was created in order to identify the articles that would be included in the systematic review. Any original research study, published in English, examining only human participants that discussed any modifiable environmental risk factor and the measurable outcome of colorectal cancer were eligible for inclusion. Studies that examine non human participants, cell lines or DNA components, languages other than English, nutritional components, and examine outcomes other than colorectal cancer were excluded. A comprehensive search of the PubMed database between 1960 and April 2011 was performed using the key words “colorectal neoplasms,” “ethanol,” “alcoholism,” “alcoholic beverages,” “alcoholic drinking,” “smoking,” “tobacco,” “air pollution,” “adverse effects ionizing radiation,” “metals,” “heavy/adverse effects,” “light/adverse effects,” and “occupational exposure,” “pesticides,” and “organochlorine products.” All articles are being reviewed by two researchers utilizing the screening inclusion tool and data extraction form. The articles that pass the inclusion criteria tool are then being categorized further into sub categories in the seven risk factor categories, based on type of study and specific risk factor studied. Initial search yielded 537 citations which are being categorized into the seven different types of risk factors using the inclusion criteria. The strongest evidence will be demonstrated in various categories highlighting characteristics of research methodology, risk factor, and measured outcomes. This evidence will be presented to not only benefit communities with cancer disparities but to benefit the second step of our study regarding a community based case control study. Identification and understanding of the best evidence is imperative to utilize robust methodology and assess research gaps for further community research. Citation Information: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20(10 Suppl):A36.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,050

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,055
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,007
Bibliométrie0,0080,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,173
Tête enseignante GPT0,405
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionMême sujetNutritional Studies and DietTravaux en français237 207