ABO blood group and the risk of gastric cancer: a case-control study and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the relationship between ABO blood group system and the risk of gastric cancer by casecontrol study and meta-analysis. Methods In our case-control study,930 cases of gastric cancer were enrolled and 8 426 cases with other diseases were taken as controls from Changhai Hospital. PubMed were searched with unlimited initial time and the cutoff time on December 31,2013; and our case-control study was also included. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of the included case-control studies by Newcastle-Ottawa scale( NOS) and extracted the data independently. The meta-analysis was performed by Meta-Analyst 3. 13 software. Results The case-control study showed that blood type A might be a risk factor of gastric cancer( OR = 1. 58; 95% CI: 1. 37-1. 81). The results of meta-analysis showed that the risk of gastric cancer of blood group A was significantly higher than that of non-A groups( OR = 1. 28; 95% CI: 1. 01-1. 62); meanwhile,blood group O demonstrated a lower risk of gastric cancer compared with non-O groups( OR = 0. 84; 95% CI: 0. 73-0. 96); subgroup analysis found differences between home population and foreign population. Conclusion ABO blood group system is associated with the risk of gastric cancer,and type A might be one of the risk factors of gastric cancer.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".