MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2967516433

Association of baseline fecal and plasma bile acids with colorectal adenoma recurrence and high-grade dysplasia in a phase III trial of colorectal adenoma recurrence

2006· article· en· W2967516433 on OpenAlexaff
Denise M. Laronde, Lewei Zhang, Catherine F. Poh, Greg Hislop, Scott Durham, Nhu D. Le, P. Michele Williams, Pamela J. Gardner, Allan Hovan, Ken Berean, John Hay, Miriam P. Rosin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsodeoxycholic acidColorectal adenomaGastroenterologyInternal medicineColorectal cancerMedicineAdenomaBile acidDysplasiaDeoxycholic acidColonoscopyCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1433 Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Secondary bile acids (BA), in particular deoxycholic acid (DCA), promote colorectal adenomas (CRA) and CRC. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), the 7Β-epimer of chenodeoxycholic acid, has been shown to inhibit colorectal carcinogenesis in animal models and in individuals at increased risk of CRC. The precise mechanisms by which UDCA prevents CRC are unknown, but one potential mechanism is that UDCA alters the bile acid profile and reduces exposure of the colorectum to harmful effects of secondary BAs. We previously published results of a phase III trial of UDCA on CRA recurrence in 1285 subjects. The major findings were a non-significant 12% reduction in adenoma recurrence and a significant 39% reduction (p=0.03) in recurrence of adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD). As part of this study we collected 72-hr fecal and plasma samples for BA analysis at baseline and 3 years of intervention on a subset of subjects, although in this analysis we focus only on the association of baseline BAs and risk of CRA recurrence in the placebo group. The median concentrations of UDCA and DCA in the aqueous fecal fraction were 0 μM/L (mean 39.7 ± SD 101.1) and 297.3 μM/L (mean 373.4 ±296.0) and in the plasma were 0.8 μM/L (mean 1.2 ± 1.5) and 0.9 μM/L (mean 1.0 ± 0.8). Spearman correlation coefficients for UDCA and DCA in aqueous fecal and plasma samples were 0.26 and 0.08, respectively. While previous small cross-sectional studies found unconjugated serum DCA to be associated with presence of CRAs, we found no association between unconjugated plasma DCA levels in the placebo group (N=78) and CRA recurrence at year 3 (p=0.09). In contrast, plasma UDCA levels were associated with reduced CRA recurrence –tertile of plasma UDCA and % adenoma recurrence : tertile 1 (0-0.5 μM/L), -76.9%, %; tertile 2 (0.5-1.2 μM/L), 65.4%, %; and tertile 3 (1.2-11.7 μM/L), 50.0% (p=0.04 for trend). The recurrence of adenomas with HGD was also significantly reduced with higher plasma UDCA (tertile 1—50.5%, tertile 2—26.9%, and tertile 3—20.0%, p=0.023 for trend). None of the baseline fecal BAs (N=365) from the placebo group were significantly associated with CRA recurrence or recurrence of CRAs with HGD. In conclusion, although previous studies have shown serum DCA to be higher in individuals with CRAs compared to controls, our study shows no association of baseline fecal or plasma DCA levels and risk of CRA recurrence. In contrast, baseline plasma but not fecal UDCA levels were associated with reduced risk of both CRA recurrence and recurrence of CRAs with HGD. These results complement those of the original phase III trial and further support a role of UDCA as a chempreventive agent for those at risk of CRC. Results also suggest that plasma UDCA may be a marker of reduced risk of CRA recurrence and recurrence of CRAs with HGD.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→