Prospective cohort study of cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological studies have consistently found a positive association between cigarette smoking and risk of colorectal adenomas, so the absence of a clear association between smoking and colorectal cancer risk may seem paradoxical. However, if colorectal cancer develops only after an induction period of about 35 years, as has been proposed recently, then studies in which all subjects have fewer than about 35 years between smoking commencement and assessment of outcome would be unlikely to detect this association. Few studies have examined smoking of several decades' duration among women. Therefore, in the cohort study reported here, we used proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios relating cigarette smoking to colorectal cancer risk among 89,835 women aged 40-59 years at recruitment into the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, a randomized controlled trial of mammography screening for breast cancer. During an average 10.6 years of follow-up (936,433 person-years), a total of 527 women were diagnosed with incident colorectal cancer (363 colon and 164 rectal). We found that smoking was associated with increased risk of rectal cancer 30 years or more after commencement, and especially with smoking of 40 years' duration or longer (hazard ratio=3.14, 95% CI=1.33-7.42). There was little evidence for altered risk of colon cancer. These results, along with those of other recent studies, support the hypothesis that tobacco smoking is an initiator, rather than a promoter, of rectal cancer. However, the results do not support an association with colon cancer risk, even with smoking of very long duration and high intensity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".