Polymyositis/dermatomyositis and Malignancy Risk: A Metaanalysis Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between polymyositis (PM)/dermatomyositis (DM) and risks of malignancy. METHODS: We searched Pubmed for articles dated before August 16, 2013. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) a cohort or observational study; (2) PM or DM as one of the exposures of interest; (3) cancer as an outcome of interest; and (4) the rate ratio (RR) or standardized incidence ratio (SIR) were available with their 95% CI. We used random-effects or fixed-effects models to calculate the pooled RR according to the heterogeneity test. RESULTS: Twenty publications were included. Compared with the general population, the pooled RR for patients with PM, DM, and PM/DM were 1.62 (95% CI 1.19-2.04), 5.50 (4.31-6.70), and 4.07 (3.02-5.12), respectively. The increased risks were more significant in patients within the first year of myositis diagnosis, male patients, and population-based studies (for DM). A significant association was also found between PM or DM and most site-specific malignancies. However, both PM and DM were not associated with stomach and prostate cancers. Significant heterogeneity was found between studies on association between PM/DM and overall malignancy, but not between PM/DM and the majority of site-specific malignancies, suggesting that that inherent malignancy difference may be a major source of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The present metaanalysis indicates that PM and DM are significantly associated with increased risks of overall malignancy and most site-specific malignancies. The number of studies on association between PM or DM and some malignancies is too small to draw a firm conclusion. Accordingly, more research is needed for these malignancies.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it