Metformin Is Not Associated with Incidence Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas among Diabetic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Several epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between diabetes and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but the effect of diabetic treatment drugs such as metformin on the risk is unknown. Methods: We conducted a population-based nested case–control study involving 878 NHL cases and 4,364 controls diagnosed with diabetes. Use of metformin and other medications before diagnosis and medical condition histories were assessed using administrative databases. We used conditional logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for use of metformin, adjusting for confounders. Results: Risk of total NHLs is not associated with ever use of metformin (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79–1.10) among diabetic patients. NHL subtypes were also not associated with metformin use. Conclusions: Metformin use is not associated with overall or subtype NHL risk among diabetic patients. Impact: NHLs are etiologically heterogeneous and larger scale studies are warranted to test the potential effect of metformin by NHL subtype. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(5); 610–2. ©2018 AACR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".