Serum C-Reactive Protein and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in Two Nested, Case–Control Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many epidemiologic studies have examined the association between C-reactive protein (CRP) and risk of cancer with inconsistent results. METHODS: We conducted two nested, case-control studies in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (ATBC) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) to test whether prediagnostic circulating CRP concentrations were associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Between 1985 and 2004, 311 cases occurred in ATBC and between 1994 and 2006, 182 cases occurred in PLCO. Controls (n = 510 in ATBC, n = 374 in PLCO) were alive at the time the case was diagnosed and were matched by age, date of blood draw, sex, and race. We used conditional logistic regression adjusted for smoking to calculate OR and 95% CI for pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: CRP concentrations (ng/mL) tended to be inversely or not associated with pancreatic cancer risk in ATBC, PLCO, and combined analyses [per standardized quintile increase in CRP, continuous OR = 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), OR = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.04), OR = 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-1.01), respectively]. In combined analyses, we observed a significant interaction (P(interaction) = 0.02) such that inverse associations were suggestive in younger (OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.01), but not older, participants. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support the hypothesis that higher CRP concentrations are associated with incident pancreatic cancer. IMPACT: Our results highlight the importance of investigating more specific biomarkers for inflammation that may reflect the biological mechanisms underlying pancreatic cancer in prospective cohort studies.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".