MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985138828 · doi:10.1182/blood-2011-06-362830

Increased incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2: a meta-analysis of observational studies

2012· review· en· W1985138828 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jorge J. Castillo, Nikhil K. Mull, John L. Reagan, Saed Nemr, Joanna Mitri

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMultiple myelomaLymphomaOdds ratioLeukemiaOncologyDiabetes mellitusGastroenterologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hematologic malignancies are a heterogeneous group of conditions with an unclear etiology. We hypothesized that diabetes mellitus type 2 is associated with increased risk of developing lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma. A literature search identified 26 studies (13 case-control and 13 cohort studies) evaluating such an association. Outcome was calculated as the odds ratio (OR) using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated using the I(2) index and the trim-and-fill analysis, respectively. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The OR for non-Hodgkin lymphoma was increased at 1.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.39; P < .01) but the OR for Hodgkin lymphoma was not. There was an increased OR for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (OR = 2.42, 95% CI, 1.24-4.72; P = .009) but not for other non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. The OR for leukemia was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.03-1.44; P = .02) and the OR for myeloma was 1.22 (95% CI, 0.98-1.53; P = .08). Although diabetes mellitus type 2 seems to increase the risk of developing lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma, future studies should focus on evaluating other potential confounders such as obesity, dietary habits, physical activity, and/or antidiabetic therapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations213
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207