MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788724508 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190870

Sex differences in obesity related cancer incidence in relation to type 2 diabetes diagnosis (ZODIAC-49)

2018· article· en· W2788724508 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis Schrijnders, Steven H. Hendriks, Nanne Kleefstra, Pauline A. J. Vissers, Jeffrey Johnson, Geertruida H. de Bock, Henk J.G. Bilo, Gijs W.D. Landman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersZonMwRijksuniversiteit Groningen
KeywordsMedicineCancerType 2 diabetesPopulationProstate cancerIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineObesityBreast cancerEndometrial cancerColorectal cancerPancreatic cancerDiabetes mellitusGynecologyOncologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diabetes and obesity seem to be partly overlapping risk factors for the development of obesity-related cancer (mainly breast, prostate and colorectal cancer) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In the general population, women have a lower risk for obesity-related cancer compared to men. Previous studies involving cardiovascular disease have shown that T2DM eliminates a female advantage of lower CVD risk in the general population compared to men. It is unclear whether the same could be true for obesity-related cancer. This study aimed to this investigate obesity-related cancer incidence in women and men known with T2DM as compared to the Dutch general population. METHODS: This study included 69,583 patients with T2DM selected from a prospective primary care cohort, which was linked to the Dutch National Cancer Registry to obtain cancer specific data. Obesity-related cancers included liver, kidney, colorectal, gallbladder, pancreas, ovarian, endometrial, advanced prostate cancer, post-menopausal breast cancer and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Primary outcome was sex-stratified, age and year of cancer diagnosis adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for three time periods: 5 years before, the year after diagnosis and the next 4 years after T2DM diagnosis. The Dutch general population was used as reference group. RESULTS: Women with T2DM were at an increased risk for obesity-related cancer compared to women in the general population already 5 years before diabetes diagnosis (SIR 1.77; 95%CI: 1.63-1.91). In both men and women, there was a peak in obesity-related cancer incidence following diabetes diagnosis (SIR: 1.38; 95%CI 1.11-1.64 and SIR: 2.21; 95%CI 1.94-2.30, respectively). From the second to the fifth year after diabetes diagnosis the obesity-related cancer incidence was higher in women compared to women in the general population (SIR: 2.12; 95%CI 1.94-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Women with T2DM seem to have a substantially higher obesity-related cancer risk. As opposed to men, in women this risk was already increased years before diabetes diagnosis. These results could imply that a relative advantage of women in the general population with regard to cancer risk is lost in women with T2DM.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207