MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982418088 · doi:10.1186/s12902-019-0444-6

Obesity, diabetes and the risk of colorectal adenoma and cancer

2019· article· en· W2982418088 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Endocrine Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMashhad University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyInternal medicineColorectal cancerAdenomaGastroenterologyFamily historyDiabetes mellitusMalignancyObesityOverweightIncidence (geometry)CancerColorectal adenomaTubular adenomaBody mass indexEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most commonly diagnosed gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. In the current case-control study, an association between diagnosis of CRC, obesity and diabetes was investigated. METHODS: Demographic characteristics, colonoscopy reports, history of drug, smoking, and medical history were collected from patients referred to a colonoscopy unit. The location, size and number of the polyps were recorded during the colonoscopy. Statistically, t-test was conducted for mean comparison for the groups. Pearson's chi-squared test (χ2) was applied to categorize variables. Five classification methods based on the important clinicopathological characteristics such as age, BMI, diabetes, family history of colon cancer was performed to predict the results of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Overall, 693 patients participated in this study. In the present study, 115 and 515 patients were evaluated for adenoma/adenocarcinoma and normal colonoscopy, respectively. The mean age of patients positive for adenoma or adenocarcinoma were significantly higher than the negative groups (p value < 0.001). Incidence of overweight and/or obesity (BMI > 25 kg/m2) were significantly higher in adenoma positive patients as compared to controls (49.9 and 0.9% respectively, p value = 0.04). The results also demonstrated a significant association between suffering from diabetes and having colon adenoma (OR = 1.831, 95%CI = 1.058-3.169, p value = 0.023). The experimental results of 5 classification methods on higher risk factors between colon adenoma and normal colonoscopy data were more than 82% and less than 0.42 for the percentage of classification accuracy and root mean squared error, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the occurrence of obesity measured based on BMI and diabetes in the adenoma positive patient group was significantly higher than the control group although there was no notable association between obesity, diabetes and adenocarcinoma.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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