Exposure to bisphosphonates and risk of colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemoprevention is a potentially attractive strategy for decreasing the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC). Preclinical studies suggest that bisphosphonates (BPs) may have direct antitumour effects against CRC. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of exposure to BPs on the incidence of CRC. METHODS: The Manitoba Cancer Registry was used to identify patients who were diagnosed with CRC from 2000 to 2009 who had been living in Manitoba for at least 5 years before diagnosis (cases). Each case was matched to 10 controls of similar age, sex, and duration of residence in Manitoba using incidence density sampling. Exposure to BPs was determined using the provincial Drug Program Information Network database. Conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of exposure to BPs on CRC incidence with adjustment for health care use, medical procedures (including lower gastrointestinal endoscopy), socioeconomic status, and pre-existing health conditions. RESULTS: In total, 5425 patients with CRC were matched to 54,242 controls. In the multivariate analysis, exposure to BPs was associated with a reduction in the risk of CRC (2-13 BP prescriptions over ≥5 years: odds ratio [OR] 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.00; ≥14 BP prescriptions over ≥5 years: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94). When the effect of specific BP agents was evaluated, the effect was significant only for exposure to risedronic acid (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.85). There was no significant effect of increasing duration or cumulative dose of alendronic acid. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggested that exposure to BPs, especially risedronic acid, may be associated with a decreased risk of developing CRC.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".