MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098739990 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.120518

Risk of cancer among patients with herpes zoster infection: a population-based study

2012· article· en· W2098739990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu-Ping Wang, Chia‐Jen Liu, Yu‐Wen Hu, Tzeng‐Ji Chen, Yi-Tsung Lin, Chang-Phone Fung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTaipei Veterans General HospitalNational Health Research Institutes
KeywordsMedicineCancerPopulationVirologyImmunologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whether the risk of cancer is increased among patients with herpes zoster is unclear. We investigated the risk of cancer among patients with herpes zoster using a nationwide health registry in Taiwan. METHODS: We identified 35 871 patients with newly diagnosed herpes zoster during 2000-2008 from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. We analyzed the standardized incidence ratios for various types of cancer. RESULTS: Among patients with herpes zoster, 895 cases of cancer were reported. Patients with herpes zoster were not at increased risk of cancer (standardized incidence ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.93-1.06). Among the subgroups stratified by sex, age and years of follow-up, there was also no increased risk of overall cancer. INTERPRETATION: Herpes zoster is not associated with increased risk of cancer in the general population. These findings do not support extensive investigations for occult cancer or enhanced surveillance for cancer in patients with herpes zoster.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207