MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incidence of diabetes among patients with colorectal cancer.

2014· article· en· W2589132724 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simron Singh, Paula A. Rochon, Geoffrey M. Anderson, Craig C. Earle, Hadas D. Fischer, Peter C. Austin, Lingsong Yun, Lorraine L. Lipscombe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College HospitalHealth Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)Hazard ratioInternal medicineCancer registryProportional hazards modelPopulationCancerDiabetes mellitusOncologyCohortConfidence intervalEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

393 Background: Emerging data show an increasingly recognized risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM) likely due to common biologic pathways. Few data are available on DM incidence among patients with CRC. Our objective was to determine whether patients with CRC have a higher incidence of DM compared to those without CRC. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, using administrative databases comparing the incidence of DM among all CRC patients identified in the Ontario Cancer registry from Jan 1, 2002 to Dec 31, 2011 with an age-matched control population without CRC. We used Cox proportional hazard to study the association. We modeled the effect of CRC on the cause-specific hazard of developing DM and censored subjects at the time of a competing event. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients receiving chemotherapy vs. not, metastatic disease vs. not and colon vs. rectal cancer. Results: We identified 39,707 persons with CRC and 198,535 controls. The mean age was 68 and 48.6% were female. We found an overall DM incidence of 8.7% over a mean follow up time of 4.8 years. On multivariable analysis, the effect of CRC on the instantaneous hazard of the DM incidence varied over time, and thus we estimated instantaneous hazard ratios (IHR) for years 1-5 of follow up. The risk of DM among CRC patients was significantly higher than controls for at least five years post CRC diagnosis. The overall DM incidence was higher in patients with no metastasis (10.6% vs 8.6%, p<0.01), and lower in patients who received chemotherapy (8.0% vs 9.0%, p<0.01). Conclusions: This is among the first study to report an increased DM incidence among CRC survivors. This association may be due to common risk factors rather than a treatment effect, as the risk remains elevated for at least five years post diagnosis. The hazard may be underestimated, as patients with advanced cancer may not be formally diagnosed with DM. These results strengthen our understanding of the common biologic pathway of both diseases and have major implications for survivorship care in patients with CRC. [Table: see text]

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207