Sex steroid hormones in relation to Barrett's esophagus: an analysis of the<scp>FINBAR</scp>Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Previously, we observed strong positive associations between circulating concentrations of free testosterone and free dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in relation to Barrett's esophagus in aUSmale military population. To replicate these findings, we conducted a second study of sex steroid hormones and Barrett's esophagus in the Factors Influencing the Barrett/Adenocarcinoma Relationship (FINBAR) Study based in Northern Ireland and Ireland. We used mass spectrometry to quantitateEDTAplasma concentrations of nine sex steroid hormones andELISAto quantitate sex hormone‐binding globulin in 177 male Barrett's esophagus cases and 185 male general population controls within theFINBARStudy. Free testosterone, freeDHT, and free estradiol were estimated using standard formulas. Multivariable logistic regression estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of associations between exposures and Barrett's esophagus. While plasma hormone and sex hormone‐binding globulin concentrations were not associated with all cases of Barrett's esophagus, we did observe positive associations with estrogens in younger men (e.g. estrone + estradiolORcontinuous per ½IQR = 2.92, 95%CI:1.08, 7.89), and free androgens in men with higher waist‐to‐hip ratios (e.g. free testosteroneORcontinuous per ½IQR = 2.71, 95%CI:1.06, 6.92). Stratification by body mass index, antireflux medications, and geographic location did not materially affect the results. This study found evidence for associations between circulating sex steroid hormones and Barrett's esophagus in younger men and men with higher waist‐to‐hip ratios. Further studies are necessary to elucidate whether sex steroid hormones are consistently associated with esophageal adenocarcinogenesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".