The Association of Age and Race and the Risk of Large Bowel Polyps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blacks have a higher incidence of colorectal cancer and a younger age at diagnosis compared with whites. Few studies have investigated racial differences in risk of metachronous adenomas and serrated polyps and whether this risk differs by polyp characteristics or age of patient. METHODS: We analyzed data pooled from three placebo-controlled adenoma chemoprevention trials to explore racial differences in the risk of large bowel polyps in patients ≤50 and >50 years of age. Using generalized linear regression, we estimated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as measures of the association between race and risk of one or more adenomas or serrated polyps after randomization. RESULTS: Among the 2,605 subjects who completed at least one follow-up exam, blacks ≤50 years of age had a higher risk of any conventional adenoma (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.99-2.92) and advanced neoplasms (RR, 4.05; 95% CI, 1.43-11.46) and a nonsignificantly lower risk of serrated polyps (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62) compared with whites. Among patients >50 years, there was no racial difference in risk of adenomas (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.27) or advanced neoplasms (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71- 1.56). However, blacks had a significantly lower risk of serrated polyps (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87) than whites. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate a higher risk of metachronous adenomas in blacks compared with whites at younger ages. IMPACT: Our results suggest that the racial disparity in colorectal cancer incidence may be due to an excess of neoplasia in younger blacks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".