The Association between Glyceraldehyde-Derived Advanced Glycation End-Products and Colorectal Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A large proportion of colorectal cancers are thought to be associated with unhealthy dietary and lifestyle exposures, particularly energy excess, obesity, hyperinsulinemia, and hyperglycemia. It has been suggested that these processes stimulate the production of toxic reactive carbonyls from sugars such as glyceraldehyde. Glyceraldehyde contributes to the production of a group of compounds known as glyceraldehyde-derived advanced glycation end-products (glycer-AGEs), which may promote colorectal cancer through their proinflammatory and pro-oxidative properties. The objective of this study nested within a prospective cohort was to explore the association of circulating glycer-AGEs with risk of colorectal cancer. METHODS: A total of 1,055 colorectal cancer cases (colon n = 659; rectal n = 396) were matchced (1:1) to control subjects. Circulating glycer-AGEs were measured by a competitive ELISA. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), adjusting for potential confounding factors, including smoking, alcohol, physical activity, body mass index, and diabetes status. RESULTS: Elevated glycer-AGEs levels were not associated with colorectal cancer risk (highest vs. lowest quartile, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.49). Subgroup analyses showed possible divergence by anatomical subsites (OR for colon cancer, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.57-1.22; OR for rectal cancer, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.14-3.19; Pheterogeneity = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, circulating glycer-AGEs were not associated with risk of colon cancer, but showed a positive association with the risk of rectal cancer. IMPACT: Further research is needed to clarify the role of toxic products of carbohydrate metabolism and energy excess in colorectal cancer development.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".