Systematic review with meta‐analysis: the declining risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis
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
BACKGROUND: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC); however, the magnitude of this effect is open to debate. AIM: To assess the risk of CRC in UC patients by systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed up to November 2013. We selected studies describing the incidence and prevalence of CRC in patients with UC. Articles were assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Cumulative incidence and incidence rates of CRC were combined and analysed using the generic inverse variance method. Sub-analyses were performed to identify factors associated with an increased risk of developing CRC. RESULTS: A total of 81 studies (181 923 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The incidence rate of CRC in patients with UC was 1.58 per 1000 patient-years (py) [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39–1.76]. Results were heterogeneous (I2 = 81–89%). The incidence rate was 4.02/1000 py (95%CI = 2.74–5.31) in studies that only included patients with extensive colitis, and 1.24/1000 py (95%CI = 1.01–1.47) in population-based studies. The incidence rate was 0.91/1000 py (95%CI = 0.61–1.2) in the first decade of disease, 4.07/1000 py (95%CI = 2.58–5.56) in the second, and 4.55/1000 py (95%CI = 2.64–6.46) in the third. The incidence rate decreased from 4.29/1000 py in the studies published in the 1950s to 1.21/1000 py in studies published in the last decade. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of patients with ulcerative colitis developing colorectal cancer has decreased steadily over the last six decades, but the extent and duration of the disease increase this risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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