Smoking-associated risks of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps in the colorectum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest cigarette smoking is associated with 1.5- to twofold increased risk of colorectal adenomas and possibly a higher risk of serrated polyps. Further clarification of risk differences between adenomas and serrated polyps is needed with regard to co-occurrence and polyp location. METHODS: We conducted a combined analysis of conventional adenoma and serrated polyp occurrence using individual-level data from 2,915 patients participating in three colonoscopy-based clinical trials. All participants had ≥1 adenomas removed at baseline and were followed for up to 4 years. Smoking habits and other lifestyle factors were collected at baseline using questionnaires. We used generalized linear regression to estimate risk ratios and 95 % confidence intervals. RESULTS: Smokers were at slightly increased risk of adenomas compared to never smokers [current: RR 1.29 (95 % CI 1.11-1.49) and former: RR 1.18 (1.05-1.32)]. Smoking was associated with greater risk of serrated polyps [current: RR 2.01 (1.66-2.44); former: RR 1.42 (1.20-1.68)], particularly in the left colorectum. Associations between current smoking and occurrence of serrated polyps only [RR 2.33 (1.76-3.07)] and both adenomas and serrated polyps [RR 2.27 (1.68-3.06)] were more pronounced than for adenomas only [RR 1.31 (1.08-1.58)]. Results were similar for other smoking variables and did not differ by gender or for advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette smoking has only a weak association with adenomas, but is associated with a significantly increased risk of serrated polyps, particularly in the left colorectum. Since a minority of left-sided serrated polyps is thought to have malignant potential, the role of smoking in initiation phases of carcinogenesis is uncertain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".