Alcohol drinking and multiple myeloma risk – a systematic review and meta-analysis of the dose–risk relationship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of alcohol intake in the risk for multiple myeloma (MM) is unclear, although some recent findings suggest an inverse relationship. To summarize the information on the topic, we carried out a systematic review and a dose-risk meta-analysis of published data. Through the literature search until August 2013, we identified 18 studies, eight case-control and 10 cohort studies, carried out in a total of 5694 MM patients. We derived pooled meta-analytic estimates using random-effects models, taking into account the correlation between estimates, and we carried out a dose-risk analysis using a class of nonlinear random-effects meta-regression models. The relative risk for alcohol drinkers versus non/occasional drinkers was 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-1.10] overall, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.74-1.24) among case-control studies, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.89-1.13) among cohort studies. Compared with nondrinkers, the pooled relative risks were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.81-1.13) for light (i.e. ≤ 1 drink/day) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.74-1.07) for moderate-to-heavy (i.e. >1 drink/day) alcohol drinkers. The dose-risk analysis revealed a model-based MM risk reduction of about 15% at two to four drinks/day (i.e. 25-50 g of ethanol). The present meta-analysis of published data found no strong association between alcohol drinking and MM risk, although a modest favorable effect emerged for moderate-to-heavy alcohol drinkers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it