MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042800122 · doi:10.1002/ijc.23522

Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma and obesity

2008· letter· en· W2042800122 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eleanor V. Willett

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphomaObesityMedicineLeptinOverweightInternal medicineBody mass indexDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaOncologyCase-control studyAnthropometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Kapoor for his interest in our report of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and obesity.1 In our article, we examined the risk of NHL associated with obesity across 18 case–control studies which were conducted in USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan. Studies were identified through the InterLymph Consortium and constitute the majority of contemporary case–control studies of lymphoma with anthropometric data. We found increased risks of NHL among overweight and obese persons in some studies whereas in others there was no positive association. Overall, this led us to conclude that there was no consistent effect of obesity on the risk of NHL. We did however, like others, find that the risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was elevated among persons considered morbidly obese (body mass index ≥ 40 kg m−2). Kapoor considers other evidence in support of the hypothesis that obesity confers an increased risk of NHL. Polymorphisms involved in energy homeostasis, and which may also have a role in immune regulation, have been investigated with respect to NHL. As well as the cited article by Skibola et al.,2 we too have examined the role of the genetic variants in the leptin (LEP 19G>A, LEP -2548G>A) and leptin receptor (LEPR 223Q>R) genes,3 and we found no association between these polymorphisms and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in a large UK case–control study. Moreover, there seemed to be little relationship between obesity, the leptin polymorphisms and the risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Another proposed explanation in support of a relationship between NHL and obesity involved lipoproteins. In particular, Kapoor refers to levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), which are low in obese persons but can also be altered by chronic inflammation. Following observations by others that NHL patients have low circulating levels of HDL-C, Lim and colleagues4 conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the lipoprotein's role in lymphomagenesis. A protective association with high levels of HDL-C was reported within the first 10 years of follow-up, but no association was found with thereafter. As such, the authors suggested that the relationship between NHL and HDL-C may not be causal, and could be a consequence of underlying chronic immune stimulation arising from, for instance, chronic inflammatory conditions or autoimmune diseases. Although the associations between obesity and other illnesses and some cancers are well-established, the relationship with NHL is unclear. As stated in our article,1 many studies show an effect but several have not. Our meta-analysis was based on individual data from—to the best of our knowledge—all but one5 of the current case–control studies of lymphoma with anthropometric information. We found that our study-specific risk estimates demonstrated some quite marked heterogeneity. Heterogeneous risks are found too across recently published prospective cohort studies (Fig. 1). Our self-reported anthropometric data were collected retrospectively and could be biased by participation and reporting but in contrast to the data presented in Figure 1, are unaffected by publication bias. Taken as a whole, the interpretation of the findings on this topic are not straightforward. Given that associations between NHL and obesity are typically not strong, it seems reasonable to conclude that studying other factors (some of which may be related to anthropometry) may prove more informative. Published risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with obesity from prospective cohort studies. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of 30 kg m−2 in most studies except: the cut point for the most obese persons was 27 kg m−2 in Oh et al. (2005); 28 kg m−2 and 26 kg m−2 for men and women respectively in Chiu et al. (2006); 35 kg m−2 in Lim et al. (2007) and Calle et al. (2003); and 40 kg m−2 for women only in Engeland et al. (2006). Risk estimates were published for men (M), women (F) or both (M&F). [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at www.interscience.wiley.com.] Yours sincerely, Eleanor V. Willett. Eleanor V. Willett*, * Epidemiology and Genetics Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207