MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alcohol, tobacco and coffee consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer

2000· article· en· W2010833097 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul J. Villeneuve, Kenneth C. Johnson, Anthony J. Hanley, Y Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer Prevention · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaAlberta Cancer FoundationCancer Care OntarioHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatic cancerOdds ratioIncidence (geometry)Cigarette smokingAlcohol consumptionCase-control studyEnvironmental healthPopulationCancerDiseaseInternal medicineAlcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between alcohol, tobacco and coffee consumption and pancreatic cancer was investigated using population-based case-control data obtained from eight Canadian provinces. Our findings are based on analyses performed on 583 histologically confirmed pancreatic cancer cases and 4813 controls. Questionnaire data were obtained directly from 76% of the cases. Male subjects with 35 or more cigarette pack-years had an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer relative to never smokers (OR= 1.46, 95% CI 1.00-2.14). Similarly, women reporting at least 23 cigarette pack-years of smoking had an odds ratio of 1.84 (95% CI 1.25-2.69). For the most part, consumption of total alcohol, wine, liquor and beer was not associated with pancreatic cancer. Coffee drinking was not related to pancreatic cancer. More work is needed to clarify the role of these and other potentially modifiable risk factors as a means to reduce the incidence of this disease for which treatment results remain disappointing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations75
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cancer PreventionSame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207