Elevated risk of colorectal, liver, and pancreatic cancers among HCV, HBV and/or HIV (co)infected individuals in a population based cohort in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies of the impact of hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HIV mono and co-infections on the risk of cancer, particularly extra-hepatic cancer, have been limited and inconsistent in their findings. METHODS: In the British Columbia Hepatitis Testers Cohort, we assessed the risk of colorectal, liver, and pancreatic cancers in association with HCV, HBV and HIV infection status. Using Fine and Gray adjusted proportional subdistribution hazards models, we assessed the impact of infection status on each cancer, accounting for competing mortality risk. Cancer occurrence was ascertained from the BC Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Among 658,697 individuals tested for the occurrence of all three infections, 1407 colorectal, 1294 liver, and 489 pancreatic cancers were identified. Compared to uninfected individuals, the risk of colorectal cancer was significantly elevated among those with HCV (Hazard ration [HR] 2.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.55-3.51), HBV (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.85-3.28), and HIV mono-infection (HR 2.30; 95% CI 1.47-3.59), and HCV/HIV co-infection. The risk of liver cancer was significantly elevated among HCV and HBV mono-infected and all co-infected individuals. The risk of pancreatic cancer was significantly elevated among individuals with HCV (HR 2.79; 95% CI 2.01-3.70) and HIV mono-infection (HR 2.82; 95% CI 1.39-5.71), and HCV/HBV co-infection. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Compared to uninfected individuals, the risk of colorectal, pancreatic and liver cancers was elevated among those with HCV, HBV and/or HIV infection. These findings highlight the need for targeted cancer prevention and diligent clinical monitoring for hepatic and extrahepatic cancers in infected 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".