Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To assess the association between blood circulating vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer risk in the Asian population. Design This is a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies that investigated the relationship between blood circulating vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer risk in the Asian population. Data sources Relevant studies were identified through a literature search in Medline, Embase and Web of Science from 1st January 1980 to 31st January 2019. Eligibility criteria: original studies published in peer-reviewed journals investigating the association between blood circulating vitamin D levels and the risk of colorectal cancer and/or adenoma in Asian countries. Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Study-specific ORs were pooled using a random-effects model. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed with generalised least squares regression. We applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment to evaluate the quality of the selected studies. Results The eight included studies encompassed a total of 2916 cases and 6678 controls. The pooled ORs of colorectal cancer for the highest versus lowest categories of blood circulating vitamin D levels was 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97) up to 36.5 ng/mL in the Asian population. There was heterogeneity among the studies (I2=53.9%, Pheterogeneity=0.034). The dose-response meta-analysis indicated a significant linear relationship (Pnon-linearity=0.11). An increment of 16 ng/mL in blood circulating vitamin D level corresponded to an OR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.97). Conclusions The results of this meta‐analysis indicate that blood circulating vitamin D level is associated with decreased risk of colorectal cancer in Asian countries. The dose-response meta-analysis shows that the strength of this association among the Asian population is similar to that among the Western population. Our study suggests that the Asian population should improve nutritional status and maintain a higher level of blood circulating vitamin D.
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 | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.214 | 0.095 |
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".