MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789238241 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.225

A224 RISK OFGASTRIC CANCER IN PATIENTS WITH GASTRIC INTESTINAL METAPLASIA AT 5-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

2018· article· en· W2789238241 on OpenAlexaff
Rapat Pittayanon, Rungsun Rerknimitr, Naruemon Klaikaew, Anapat Sanpavat, Pinit Kullavanijaya, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetastasis and carcinoma case studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineIntestinal metaplasiaGastroenterologyCancerDysplasiaFamily historyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a premalignant condition of intestinal-type gastric cancer. However, its management is not well-established. The objective of this study was to determine the risk factors for gastric cancer in a population of patients with GIM in order to propose appropriate clinical recommendations in a setting of low prevalence area of gastric cancer. Ninety-one patients with previously diagnosed GIM between 2004 and 2014 were recruited for surveillance EGD every 6 to 12 months until a diagnosis of gastric cancer or completion of the planned 5-year follow-up duration. Possible risk factors for gastric cancer that were assessed included sex, age, smoking, alcohol, salty and preservative food ingestion, H. pylori infection, family history of gastric cancer, staging of Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) and Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Assessment (OLGIM), type of GIM, serum pepsinogen I, pepsinogen II, IL-1RN and IL-1B, as well as histological appearance (mature versus immature GIM and the presence of dysplasia). The mean follow-up period was 4.05 ± 2.5 years. At initial presentation, 81 of the 91 patients (89%) had mature GIM (mGIM), whereas the remaining 11% had a study entry diagnosis of immature GIM (iGIM). No cancer developed amongst patients with mGIM. In contrast, 5 of the 10 patients exhibiting iGIM (50%) progressed to HGD (n=2) or cancer (n=3). Male gender (p=0.027), iGIM (p=0.001) were associated with high risk histology (dysplasia or cancer, diagnosed in 6 patients) by study end. A trend suggested a possible association with smoking as well (P=0.08) Male patients and those with iGIM are at greatest risk of developing dysplasia or early gastric cancer. Six- monthly interval surveillance with EGD in elderly male patient with iGIM is justified for early detection of possible progression, so that curative treatment may be offered. King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital AND Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicMetastasis and carcinoma case studiesFrench-language works237,207