MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071456214 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103508

Gastroesophageal Reflux in Relation to Adenocarcinomas of the Esophagus: A Pooled Analysis from the Barrett’s and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON)

2014· review· en· W2071456214 on OpenAlexaff
Michael B. Cook, Douglas A. Corley, Liam Murray, Linda M. Liao, Farin Kamangar, Weimin Ye, Marilie D. Gammon, Harvey A. Risch, Alan G. Casson, Neal D. Freedman, Wong-Ho Chow, Anna H. Wu, Leslie Bernstein, Olof Nyrén, Nirmala Pandeya, David C. Whiteman, Thomas L. Vaughan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research CouncilHealth Research Board
KeywordsHeartburnMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyOdds ratioBarrett's esophagusBody mass indexEsophagusAdenocarcinomaGERDEsophageal diseasePopulationRisk factorLogistic regressionRegurgitation (circulation)RefluxCancerDiseaseEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have evidenced an association between gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA). It is unknown to what extent these associations vary by population, age, sex, body mass index, and cigarette smoking, or whether duration and frequency of symptoms interact in predicting risk. The Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON) allowed an in-depth assessment of these issues. METHODS: Detailed information on heartburn and regurgitation symptoms and covariates were available from five BEACON case-control studies of EA and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJA). We conducted single-study multivariable logistic regressions followed by random-effects meta-analysis. Stratified analyses, meta-regressions, and sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Five studies provided 1,128 EA cases, 1,229 EGJA cases, and 4,057 controls for analysis. All summary estimates indicated positive, significant associations between heartburn/regurgitation symptoms and EA. Increasing heartburn duration was associated with increasing EA risk; odds ratios were 2.80, 3.85, and 6.24 for symptom durations of <10 years, 10 to <20 years, and ≥20 years. Associations with EGJA were slighter weaker, but still statistically significant for those with the highest exposure. Both frequency and duration of heartburn/regurgitation symptoms were independently associated with higher risk. We observed similar strengths of associations when stratified by age, sex, cigarette smoking, and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that the association between heartburn/regurgitation symptoms and EA is strong, increases with increased duration and/or frequency, and is consistent across major risk factors. Weaker associations for EGJA suggest that this cancer site has a dissimilar pathogenesis or represents a mixed population of patients.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.043
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations167
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207