MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Young Adult and Usual Adult Body Mass Index and Multiple Myeloma Risk: A Pooled Analysis in the International Multiple Myeloma Consortium (IMMC)

2017· article· en· W2590674004 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda M. Birmann, Gabriella Andreotti, Anneclaire J. De Roos, Nicola J. Camp, Brian C.‐H. Chiu, John J. Spinelli, Nikolaus Becker, Véronique Benhaı̈m-Luzon, Parveen Bhatti, Paolo Boffetta, Paul Brennan, Elizabeth E. Brown, Pierluigi Cocco, Laura Costas, Wendy Cozen, Sílvia de Sanjosé, Lenka Foretová, Graham G. Giles, Marc Maynadié, Kirsten B. Moysich, Alexandra Nieters, Anthony Staines, Guido Tricot, Dennis D. Weisenburger, Yawei Zhang, Dalsu Baris, Mark P. Purdue

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer InstituteWorld Health OrganizationAmerican Association for Cancer Research
KeywordsMultiple myelomaBody mass indexMedicineInternal medicineAnthropometryRisk factorYoung adultOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma risk increases with higher adult body mass index (BMI). Emerging evidence also supports an association of young adult BMI with multiple myeloma. We undertook a pooled analysis of eight case–control studies to further evaluate anthropometric multiple myeloma risk factors, including young adult BMI. Methods: We conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis of usual adult anthropometric measures of 2,318 multiple myeloma cases and 9,609 controls, and of young adult BMI (age 25 or 30 years) for 1,164 cases and 3,629 controls. Results: In the pooled sample, multiple myeloma risk was positively associated with usual adult BMI; risk increased 9% per 5-kg/m2 increase in BMI [OR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–1.14; P = 0.007]. We observed significant heterogeneity by study design (P = 0.04), noting the BMI–multiple myeloma association only for population-based studies (Ptrend = 0.0003). Young adult BMI was also positively associated with multiple myeloma (per 5-kg/m2; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1–1.3; P = 0.0002). Furthermore, we observed strong evidence of interaction between younger and usual adult BMI (Pinteraction <0.0001); we noted statistically significant associations with multiple myeloma for persons overweight (25–<30 kg/m2) or obese (30+ kg/m2) in both younger and usual adulthood (vs. individuals consistently <25 kg/m2), but not for those overweight or obese at only one time period. Conclusions: BMI-associated increases in multiple myeloma risk were highest for individuals who were overweight or obese throughout adulthood. Impact: These findings provide the strongest evidence to date that earlier and later adult BMI may increase multiple myeloma risk and suggest that healthy BMI maintenance throughout life may confer an added benefit of multiple myeloma prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 876–85. ©2017 AACR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.024
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations47
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207