MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989604070 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605380

Family history and the risk of gastric cancer

2009· article· en· W1989604070 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Mehdi Yaghoobi, Raheleh Bijarchi, Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioCancerFamily historyEtiologyPopulationGenome-wide association studyRisk factorGenetic associationGenetic predispositionCase-control studyGeneticsMedicineBiologyOncologyInternal medicineGenotypeEnvironmental healthGeneSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both environmental and genetic factors have a role in the aetiology of gastric cancer. The nature of the genetic factors has not been well-studied and, outside of a few rare cancer syndromes, the genes involved have not been identified. Having a first-degree relative with gastric cancer is a consistent risk factor for gastric cancer, although the magnitude of the odds ratio (OR) associated with a positive family history varies with the ethnic group and with the geographic region. In published case-control studies, the odds ratio varies from approximately 2 to 10, depending on the country. Unlike other common adult cancers, the risk of gastric cancer in migrants is similar to that of the population of origin and does not approach that of the host population in the first generation post-migration. It is hoped that molecular studies, including genomewide association studies (GWAS), will illuminate the genetic factors underlying this important association.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations214
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207