Coexistence of Colorectal Adenomas and Coronary Calcification in Asymptomatic Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: Because of shared risk factors between clinically manifest cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer, we hypothesized the coexistence of subclinical atherosclerosis measured by coronary artery calcium (CAC) and colorectal adenoma (CRA) and that these 2 processes would also share common risk factors. BACKGROUND: No study has directly compared the risk factors associated with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis and CRA. STUDY: This was a cross-sectional study using multinomial logistic regression analysis of 4859 adults who participated in a health screening examination (2010 to 2011; analysis 2014 to 2015). CAC scores were categorized as 0, 1 to 100, or >100. Colonoscopy results were categorized as absent, low-risk, or high-risk CRA. RESULTS: The prevalence of CAC>0, CAC 1 to 100 and >100 was 13.0%, 11.0%, and 2.0%, respectively. The prevalence of any CRA, low-risk CRA, and high-risk CRA was 15.1%, 13.0%, and 2.1%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for CAC>0 comparing participants with low-risk and high-risk CRA with those without any CRA were 1.35 (1.06-1.71) and 2.09 (1.29-3.39), respectively. Similarly, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for any CRA comparing participants with CAC 1 to 100 and CAC>100 with those with no CAC were 1.26 (1.00-1.6) and 2.07 (1.31-3.26), respectively. Age, smoking, diabetes, and family history of CRC were significantly associated with both conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a graded association between CAC and CRA in apparently healthy individuals. The coexistence of both conditions further emphasizes the need for more evidence of comprehensive approaches to screening and the need to consider the impact of the high risk of coexisting disease in individuals with CAC or CRA, instead of piecemeal approaches restricted to the detection of each disease independently.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".