The Association of Lifestyle and Dietary Factors with the Risk for Serrated Polyps of the Colorectum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some serrated polyps of the colorectum are likely preinvasive lesions, evolving through a newly recognized serrated pathway to colorectal cancer. To assess possible risk and protective factors for serrated polyps and particularly to explore differences in risk factors between polyps in the right and left colorectum, we pooled data from three large multicenter chemoprevention trials. A serrated polyp was defined broadly as any serrated lesion (hyperplastic, sessile serrated adenoma, "traditional" serrated adenoma, mixed adenoma) diagnosed during each trial's main treatment period of approximately 3 to 4 years. Using generalized linear regression, we computed risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals as measures of the association between risk for serrated polyps and demographic, lifestyle, and dietary variables. Of the 2,830 subjects that completed at least one follow-up exam after randomization, 675 (23.9%) had at least one left-sided serrated polyp and 261 (9.2%) had at least one right-sided lesion. In the left colorectum, obesity, cigarette smoking, dietary fat, total energy intake, and red meat intake were associated with an increased risk for serrated polyps. In the right colon, aspirin treatment was associated with a reduced risk and family history of polyps and folate treatment were associated with an increased risk for serrated polyps. Our results suggest that several common lifestyle and dietary variables are associated with risk for serrated polyps, and some of these may differ for the right and left colorectum.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".