Risk Factors for Non-Ampullary Duodenal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An increase in the incidence of duodenal adenocarcinoma has been recently reported. However, little is known about the risk factors for duodenal adenocarcinoma, which are important for screening purposes. We, therefore, aimed to conduct a systematic review to identify risk factors for non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A medical literature search was performed using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Japan Medical Abstracts Society, and Web of Science. Studies that assessed the association between dietary habits, lifestyle behaviors, comorbidities, and non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias in individual studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the quality of evidence across studies included in this review. RESULTS: Out of 1,244 screened articles, 10 were finally selected for qualitative synthesis. In the general population, no consistent risk factors were identified except for Helicobacter pylori positivity, which was considered a risk factor in 2 studies, but the quality of evidence was considered very low because of the high risk of bias. In patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), Spigelman stage IV at initial endoscopy was considered a consistent risk factor in 3 studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently limited data regarding risk factors for non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma, and no conclusive risk factors were identified in the general population. However, in patients with FAP, Spigelman stage IV was identified as a consistent risk factor. Further studies are needed to improve diagnosis and support effective clinical management of this malignancy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".