A Pooled Analysis of Smoking and Colorectal Cancer: Timing of Exposure and Interactions with Environmental Factors
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: Considerable evidence suggests that cigarette smoking is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). What is unclear, however, is the impact of quitting smoking on risk attenuation and whether other risk factors for CRC modify this association. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of eight studies, including 6,796 CRC cases and 7,770 controls, to evaluate the association between cigarette smoking history and CRC risk and to investigate potential effect modification by other risk factors. RESULTS: Current smokers [OR, 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.43] and former smokers (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.27), relative to never smokers, showed higher risks of CRC. Former smokers remained at higher CRC risk, relative to never smokers, for up to about 25 years after quitting. The impact of time since quitting varied by cancer subsite: The excess risk due to smoking decreased immediately after quitting for proximal colon and rectal cancer but not until about 20 years post-quitting for distal colon cancer. Furthermore, we observed borderline statistically significant additive interactions between smoking status and body mass index [BMI; relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI]), 0.15; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.31; P = 0.06] and significant additive interaction between smoking status and fruit consumption (RERI, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01-0.30; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: CRC risk remained increased for about 25 years after quitting smoking, and the pattern of decline in risk varied by cancer subsite. BMI and fruit intake modified the risk associated with smoking. IMPACT: These results contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms through which smoking impacts CRC etiology.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it