11 Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in Patients With a Prior History of Acute Pancreatitis: Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several studies have reported increased risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with chronic pancreatitis. However, the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with a history of acute pancreatitis (AP) is not well known. Several recent epidemiological studies, especially case-control studies, have reported conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis of cohort studies to quantify the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with history of AP. METHODS: A detailed search of several databases (Pubmed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane database and CINAHL) and research scientific meetings of gastroenterology and surgical societies was performed for cohort studies examining the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with a prior history of acute pancreatitis. Data was extracted using a standard form by 2 reviewers. Data regarding study characteristics, patient characteristics, exposures and outcomes and country of study was extracted. Summary odds ratio was calculated using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. Random effects model was used for computing effect size. Studies without a matched control group were excluded. Heterogeniety and publication bias were assessed. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newscastle-Ottawa scale. There were no language restrictions. RESULTS: Five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were performed in UK, Sweden, USA and Taiwan. The most common etiology of AP was gall stone pancreatitis in all the studies. Patients with chronic pancreatitis and alcohol related acute pancreatitis were excluded in all studies. All studies had a matched control group and adjusted for confounders. There were 1162 cases of pancreatic cancer in 103958 patients with a prior history of acute pancreatitis. 2042 cases of pancreatic cancer were seen in 1442158 controls. A higher risk of pancreatic cancer was seen among patients with prior history of AP (OR 7.39: 95% CI 5.03–10.88, P < 0.05). Three studies provided data on risk of pancreatic cancer >2 years after diagnosis of AP. The risk of pancreatic cancer was still elevated after >2 years in patients with prior of history of AP (OR 2.31: 1.61 = 3.30, P < 0.05). Heterogeneity was present and the effect size was computed using random effects model. CONCLUSION: Patients with a prior history of AP are at an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Further cohort studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".