Incidence of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma varies according to altitude: meta-regression analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Drs Patel and Mihai for their interest in our article where we described the incidence of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma in Alberta, Canada (1). In their letter (2), they raised important points related to the role of hypoxia in tumorigenesis, highlighting the supporting evidence to date. Exposure to high altitude may indeed be a modifiable risk factor for pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. However, it is admittedly difficult to examine the epidemiology of this association on a large population scale because of the inherent challenges in accurately quantifying the cumulative risk and the intensity of exposure over the period of a person's lifetime (e.g. for those who live at different altitudes throughout their lives) (3). Accordingly, as Drs Patel and Mihai point out, the best available evidence may be derived from comparisons of existing studies that were conducted in populations of different altitudes. Addressing this, we examined the global incidence of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma across available studies, accounting for differences in altitude and barometric pressure (Table 1). To facilitate comparisons, the annual incidence proportions per 100 000 people along with corresponding 95% CIs were extracted, if possible (or otherwise manually calculated) (4). The altitude of the population was based on the average elevation of the geographic location of the study (https://en-ca.topographic-map.com; accessed March 2, 2021) and the corresponding barometric pressure (PB) in Torr estimated using the Model Atmosphere equation (5): PB = e(6.63268 − 0.1112 × (altitude in km) − 0.00149 × (altitude in km) × (altitude in km)). We then conducted a meta-analysis using restricted maximum likelihood estimates with a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed and quantified using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistic, respectively (6). We explored potential explanations for between-study heterogeneity using meta-regression.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".