Type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk of malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiology studies have demonstrated inconsistent associations between type 2 diabetes mellitus and the risk of malignant melanoma. To this end, the aim was to perform a meta-analysis of cohort studies. METHOD: Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to February 2014. Cohort studies addressing the relative risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus on malignant melanoma were included in this meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied for quality evaluation. The pooled relative risks with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated by using random-effects or random-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated by I (2) and funnel plot analysis, respectively. Data was analyzed using STATA 11.0. RESULTS: A total of 9 independent cohorts from 8 manuscripts were entered this meta-analysis. Type 2 diabetes mellitus was slightly associated with an increased risk of malignant melanoma, and the pooled relative risk was 1.15 (95% CI, 1.00-1.32) in diabetes compared with non-diabetes with significant evidence of heterogeneity among these studies (P=0.016, I (2) =57.6%). For the studies adjusted for age, gender and obesity, the relative risks were 1.21 (95% CI, 1.03-1.42), 1.17 (95% CI, 1.01-1.35) and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.00-1.24), respectively. For the population-based studies in which case cohort established, the relative risk was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62). CONCLUSION: Type 2 diabetes might be an independent risk factor for malignant melanoma. Further studies are needed to specifically test the effect, and fully elucidate the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms.
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 | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".