Coffee and tea consumption and cancers of the bladder, colon and rectum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coffee has been observed to be associated weakly or not at all with bladder cancer risk, inversely with colon cancer risk, and inconsistently with rectal cancer risk. The association between these cancers and consumption of coffee and tea was examined in a single case-control study conducted in Ontario, Canada from 1992 to 1994. A questionnaire was filled out by 927 bladder cancer cases, 991 colon cancer cases, 875 rectal cancer cases, and 2118 population controls. Although bladder cancer risk was not associated with coffee or tea, risk estimates associated with coffee among subjects who had never smoked were non-significantly increased. Colon cancer risk was inversely associated with coffee. Relative to those drinking less than 1 cup of coffee per day, the odds ratios (OR) for those drinking 1-2 cups was 0.9 (95% CI 0.8-1.1), for those drinking 3-4 cups was 0.8 (95% CI 0.7-1.0), and for those drinking 5 or more cups was 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-0.9); these ORs decreased linearly (P = 0.008). The reduced risk estimates were more pronounced with cancer of the proximal colon than the distal colon. Rectal cancer risk was not associated with either coffee or tea. Coffee consumption was observed to have a different relationship for each of the cancer sites and tea consumption was not related to any cancer site.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".