MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117476234 · doi:10.1111/1756-185x.14044

The association between gout and the risk of urological cancers: A pooled analysis of population‐based studies

2020· letter· en· W3117476234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dechao Feng, Xiao Hu, Yubo Yang, Lu Yang, Wuran Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Rheumatic Diseases · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric Acid
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province
KeywordsMedicineGoutInternal medicineHyperuricemiaPopulationHazard ratioOncologyIncidence (geometry)Cohort studyUric acidEpidemiologyCohortConfidence intervalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gout is a disorder of purine metabolism, and is characterized by inflammation and hyperuricemia, which are considered to be associated with carcinogenesis and anti-carcinogenesis, respectively.[1][2][3] Insofar as can be ascertained, both gout and hyperuricemia are conspicuously related to metabolic syndrome, which has been hypothesized to be associated with carcinogenesis.4 Some researchers argue that high serum uric acid levels are related to increased risk of cancer, although uric acid was thought to be protective in tumorigenesis because of its systemic antioxidant properties.4 Recent epidemiological studies report conflicting relationships between gout or gout therapy and the risk of urological cancers, even when analyzing the same databases.[1][2][3][5][6][7][8][9][10] Given these contradictory reports, we conducted this meta-analysis to elucidate the risk of urological cancers among individuals with gout.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.017
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Rheumatic DiseasesSame topicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric AcidFrench-language works237,207