Risk factors for esophageal cancer: emphasis on infectious agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk factors for esophageal cancer include genetic factors (such as tylosis) and infectious agents. A variety of organisms have been implicated in esophageal carcinogenesis, either directly or indirectly. In this review, we explore the normal esophageal flora and how it may be controlled, and also the variety of organisms that may affect esophageal carcinogenesis, either directly or indirectly. The organisms with potential direct effects in squamous cell carcinoma include human papillomavirus (HPV), Epstein-Barr virus, and polyoma viruses. Interestingly, HPV is now implicated in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), not in its initiation but in the development of dysplasia, in which HPV33 in particular has been associated. Indirectly, Helicobacter pylori has been associated with EAC by, initially, causing increased acid secretion that increases acid reflux, and by reducing lower esophageal sphincter pressure, which increases gastroesophageal reflux; the latter increases the risk of Barrett's esophagus, and hence EAC. Conversely, subsequent atrophic gastritis may normalize that risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".