Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Site-specific risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) among survivors of endometrial cancer (EC) is not known. The objective of the present study was to assess the risk of CRC (overall and subsite specific) among EC survivors. METHODS: A historical cohort study was performed by linking the Manitoba Cancer Registry and the Manitoba Health administrative databases. Each subject diagnosed with EC as her first cancer between 1987 and 2008 was age matched with up to five women with no history of invasive cancer on the index date (date of EC diagnosis). All subjects were followed up to the date of diagnosis of CRC or another cancer, death, migration, or study end point (December 31, 2009). Competing-risk proportional hazards models were used to compare the CRC incidence rates with adjustment for age, history of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and socioeconomic status. There were three mutually exclusive (and competing) outcomes: CRC, another primary cancer, and death. RESULTS: A total of 3,115 women with EC and 15,084 without EC were followed up for a total of 145,502 person-years. Women diagnosed with EC at age ≤ 50 years had an increased risk of being diagnosed with CRC (all CRC: hazard ratio [HR] = 4.41; 95% CI, 1.47 to 13.26; right-sided CRC: HR = 7.48; 95% CI, 1.29 to 43.28). There was no increased risk of all CRC among women 51 to 65 years of age or those older than 65 years at the time of EC diagnosis. However, women 51 to 65 years of age at EC diagnosis had an increased risk of right-sided CRC (HR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.01). CONCLUSION: This study suggests young women (age ≤ 50 years) with EC are at increased risk of CRC; risk of right-sided CRC is also increased in women 51 to 65 years old at EC diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".