Risk Factors Associated With Young-Onset Colorectal Adenomas and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Research
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of young-onset colorectal adenomas and cancer (yCRAC) in adults less than 50 years of age is increasing. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies to identify lifestyle and clinical risk factors associated with yCRAC risk. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies which: used an epidemiologic study design, involved individuals with yCRAC, evaluated at least 1 lifestyle or clinical factor, and applied multivariable regression approaches. We critically appraised the quality of included studies and calculated pooled measures of association (e.g. odds ratio [OR]) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We identified 499 articles in our search with 9 included in a narrative synthesis and 6 included in a meta-analysis. We found in the pooled analysis that smoking and alcohol consumption were lifestyle factors associated with yCRAC, as were clinical factors including obesity elevated blood glucose, elevated blood pressure, and elevated triglycerides. We identified lifestyle and clinical risk factors associated with risk of yCRAC, which have potential implications for informing preventive efforts and modifying screening to target at-risk populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it