Possible mechanisms relating diet and risk of colon cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two recent developments in cancer epidemiology and experimental carcinogenesis provide the basis for two possible mechanisms relating diet and colon cancer risk. The first development is the accumulating epidemiological evidence for an association between insulin resistance and colonic adenomas and cancers. This evidence suggests the following mechanism: the consumption of excess dietary energy results in the development of insulin resistance with increased circulating levels of insulin, triglycerides, and non-esterified fatty acids. These circulating factors subject colonic epithelial cells to a proliferative stimulus and also expose them to reactive oxygen intermediates. These long-term exposures result in the promotion of colon cancer. The second development is the continuing identification of agents that significantly inhibit experimental colon carcinogenesis. These observations suggest the following mechanism: focal loss of epithelial barrier function resulting from a failure of terminal differentiation results in the "leak" of a presently undefined toxin and a focal inflammatory response characterized by evidence of the activation of the COX-2 enzyme and an oxidative stress with the release of reactive oxygen intermediates. The resulting focal proliferation and mutagenesis give rise to aberrant crypt foci and adenomas. The process is inhibited by: (a) demulcents confined to the colonic lumen that "repair" the surface; (b) anti-inflammatory agents; or (c) antioxidants. The two mechanisms, i.e., insulin resistance acting throughout the body and focal epithelial barrier failure acting locally, can describe most of the known relationships between diet and colon cancer risk.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".