Cholecystectomy can increase the risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to elucidate the effects of cholecystectomy on the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) by conducting a meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies. METHODS: The eligible cohort studies were selected by searching the PubMed and EMBASE databases from their origination to June 30, 2016, as well as by consulting the reference lists of the selected articles. Two authors individually collected the data from the 10 papers. When the data showed marked heterogeneity, we used a random-effects model to estimate the overall pooled risk; otherwise, a fixed effects model was employed. RESULTS: The final analysis included ten cohort studies. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), nine papers were considered high quality. After the data of these 9 studies were combined, an increased risk of CRC was found among the individuals who had undergone cholecystectomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.38). In addition, we also found a promising increased risk for colon cancer (CC) (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07-1.58), but no relationship between cholecystectomy and rectum cancer (RC) (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.89-1.34) was observed. Additionally, in the sub-group analysis of the tumor location in the colon, a positive risk for ascending colon cancer (ACC) was found (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.26). After combining the ACC, transverse colon cancer (TCC), sigmoid colon cancer (SCC) and descending colon cancer (DCC) patients, we found a positive relationship with cholecystectomy (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.26). Furthermore, after combining the ACC and DCC patients, we also found a positive relationship with cholecystectomy (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.11-1.26) in the sub-group analysis. In an additional sub-group analysis of patients from Western countries, there was a positive relationship between cholecystectomy and the risk of CRC (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.05-1.36). Furthermore, a positive relationship between female gender and CRC was also found (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.03-1.34). However, there was no relationship between gender and CC or RC. Furthermore, no publication bias was observed, and the sensitivity analysis indicated stable results. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies revealed that cholecystectomy is associated with an increased risk for CRC, CC and ACC, particularly in Western countries. No relationship between cholecystectomy and RC was observed. There was no relationship between gender and either CC or RC, but a positive relationship between female gender and CRC was observed.
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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.075 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".