Reduced Risk of Colorectal Cancer With Use of Oral Bisphosphonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The association between oral bisphosphonate (BP) intake and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk has been investigated in several recent studies with conflicting results. We summarized the evidence from the published studies in a categorical, dose-response meta-analysis. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 15, 2012. We included studies that reported effect size estimates with 95% CIs for the association between exposure to oral BPs and risk of CRC. RESULTS: Three case-control studies with a total of 16,998 CRC cases and 108,197 controls and one cohort study with 94,405 individuals exposed to BPs and 283,181 unexposed to BPs were included in meta-analysis. The random effect model meta-analysis suggested reduced risk of CRC with exposure to oral BPs with pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97). Significant inverse relationship was noted for 10 or more prescriptions categories, with pooled ORs of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). Similarly, the analysis for 1 to 3 years of use and more than 3 years of use of BPs suggested a significant inverse relationship, with pooled ORs of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.85) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99), respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that the use of oral BPs at a dose of 10 or more prescriptions or 1 or more years of duration is associated with reduced risk of CRC. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to prove this 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".