Risk of basal cell carcinoma in a randomized clinical trial of aspirin and folic acid for the prevention of colorectal adenomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspirin may reduce the risk of several types of cancer. To evaluate if folic acid is associated with risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC). BCC incidence was evaluated in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial of aspirin (81 mg daily or 325 mg daily for ~3 years) and/or folic acid (1 mg daily for ~6 years) for the prevention of colorectal adenomas among 1121 participants with a previous adenoma. BCC was confirmed by blinded review of pathology reports. One hundred and four of 958 non‐Hispanic white participants were diagnosed with BCC over a median follow‐up of 13·5 years. Cumulative incidence of BCC was 12% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7–17] for placebo, 16% (95% CI 11–21) for 81 mg aspirin daily and 15% (95% CI 10–20) for 325 mg aspirin daily [hazard ratio (HR) for any aspirin 1·45 (95% CI 0·93–2·26); HR for 81 mg daily 1·57 (95% CI 0·96–2·56); HR for 325 mg daily 1·33 (95% CI 0·80–2·20)]. BCC risk was higher with aspirin use in those without previous skin cancer but lower with aspirin use in those with previous skin cancer (Pinteraction = 0·02 for 81 mg aspirin daily; Pinteraction = 0·03 for 325 mg aspirin daily). Folic acid supplementation was unrelated to BCC incidence (HR 0·85; 95% CI 0·57–1·27). Neither aspirin nor folic acid treatment had a statistically significant effect on risk of BCC. Subgroup analysis suggested that chemopreventive effects of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs may be specific to those at high risk for BCC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".