Obesity and lifestyle risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the association of obesity with esophageal adenocarcinoma, and with the precursor lesions Barrett esophagus and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This case-control study included cases with GERD (n = 142), Barrett esophagus (n = 130), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (n = 57). Controls comprised 102 asymptomatic individuals. Using logistic regression methods, we compared obesity rates between cases and controls adjusting for differences in age, gender, and lifestyle risk factors. Relative to normal weight, obese individuals were at increased risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma (Odds Ratio [OR] 4.67, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.27-17.9). Diets high in vitamin C were associated with a lower risk for GERD (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.87), Barrett esophagus (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.98), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.77). For the more established risk factors, we confirmed that smoking was a significant risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma, and that increased liquor consumption was associated with GERD and Barrett esophagus. In light of the current obesity epidemic, esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence rates are expected to continue to increase. Successful promotion of healthy body weight and diets high in vitamin C may substantially reduce the incidence of this disease.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it