MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610492359 · doi:10.3747/co.23.3226

Rising Rates of Colorectal Cancer among Younger Iranians: Is Diet to Blame?

2017· article· en· W2610492359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sujana Arani, Mohammad Amin Kerachian

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerBlamePopulationIncidence (geometry)DemographyCancerYoung adultMortality rateGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (crc) is one of the most prevalent cancers in the world. Although the incidence of crc is currently very low in the older Iranian population compared with Western populations, young Iranians show a rising trend of crc-that is, the age-adjusted rate is close in the young Iranian population compared with the U.S. population, and the rate in older Iranians is much lower. METHODS: To assess a putative relationship between diet and a rising rate of crc in younger Iranians, a combined text word and mesh heading search strategy identified relevant studies through Google Scholar and medline. RESULTS: A critical look at diet among Iranians shows major issues that might be raising the risk for crc. There are also scenarios other than diet for the rise, such as the young age structure of the country. However, the actual scenario is more complex. CONCLUSIONS: In Iran, crc is one of the most common incident cancers and a common cause of cancer death. Primary and secondary prevention-with attention to a healthy lifestyle, physical activity, and screening-should be enhanced in the general population.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 venueCurrent OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207