Colorectal cancer and self-reported tooth agenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in APC and AXIN2 are both associated with colon neoplasia as well as anomalous dental development. We tested the hypothesis that congenitally missing teeth may occur more commonly in individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer than in individuals without this diagnosis. METHODS: Via a survey conducted on 1636 individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 2788 individuals with no colorectal cancer from the Colon Cancer Family Registry, self-reported information on congenitally missing teeth was collected. The frequency of missing teeth between cases and controls was compared using Pearson's chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: 4.8% of cases and 5.7% of controls reported having at least one missing tooth (p = 0.20). When we stratified by recruitment site, gender, and mutation status where available, frequency of missing teeth was not statistically significantly different between cases and controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not provide support for there being a general predisposition to missing teeth among a large cohort of CRC patients. The study neither addresses nor excludes the possibility, however, that individuals presenting with notable hypodontia/oligodontia might still have an increased risk for colorectal neoplasia.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".