Serum Ghrelin Levels and Risk of Subsequent Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several large studies have shown a negative association between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Diminution of gastric ghrelin secretion by H. pylori could protect against esophageal malignancy by decreasing appetite, food intake, and acid production, thereby decreasing weight and gastroesophageal reflux. METHODS: We evaluated the association of ghrelin with esophageal adenocarcinoma using a population from a previous nested case-control study. Among 128,992 enrolled in a multiphasic health checkup (MHC) between 1964 and 1969, 52 patients developed esophageal adenocarcinoma by the year 2000. Three random controls from the MHC cohort were matched to each case by age, sex, race, and the date and site of their MHC. Serum samples collected at the MHC had been previously tested for IgG antibodies against H. pylori and the CagA protein. Serum ghrelin concentrations were determined by a commercial EIA on 52% of the initial subjects (31 cases and 79 controls). RESULTS: A concentration of ghrelin greater than 3,200 pg/mL at MHC (fourth quartile) was associated with a lower risk of esophageal cancer (H. pylori and body mass index [BMI] adjusted OR=0.18 [CI 0.04-0.78]). This inverse association was seen only in overweight subjects (BMI>or=25, P value for interaction=0.09). The effects of H. pylori and ghrelin were independent. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the original hypothesis, high rather than low serum ghrelin was associated with protection against esophageal adenocarcinoma but only among overweight subjects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".