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 OpenAlexaff
Ghodratollah Soltani, Arash Poursheikhani, Maryam Yassi, Abdorasool Hayatbakhsh, Matin Kerachian, Mohammad Amin Kerachian

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
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

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

Citations101
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Endocrine DisordersSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207