Risk of Advanced Adenoma, Colorectal Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer Mortality in People With Low-Risk Adenomas at Baseline Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of advanced adenomas (AAs), colorectal cancer (CRC), and/or CRC-related death among individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs). Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published between January 2006 and July 2015. Quality and strength of the evidence were rated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the GRADE framework, respectively. Results: Eleven observational studies (n=64,317) were included. A meta-analysis of eight cohort studies (n=10,139, 3 to 10 years’ follow-up) showed a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of AAs in individuals with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy (RR 1.55 (95% CI 1.24–1.94);P=0.0001;I2=0%). The pooled 5-year cumulative incidence of AA was 3.28% (95% CI: 1.85–5.10%), 4.9% (95% CI: 3.18–6.97%), and 17.13% (95% CI: 11.97–23.0%) for the no adenoma, LRA, and AA baseline groups, respectively. Two studies, which could not be pooled, showed a reduction in the risk of CRC in individuals with LRAs compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.44–0.99) at a median follow-up of 7.7 years and OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2–0.6) at 3–5 years). One large retrospective cohort study found a 25% reduction in CRC mortality in individuals with LRAs compared with the general population (SMR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63–0.88) at a median follow-up of 7.7 years). Conclusions: We observed a small but significant increase in the risk of AAs in people with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy, but compared with the general population, people with LRAs have significantly lower risks of CRC and of CRC-related mortality.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".