Family History and Risk of Bladder Cancer: An Analysis Accounting for First- and Second-degree Relatives
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
Although evidence suggests that a positive family history of bladder cancer in first-degree relatives is an important risk factor for bladder cancer occurrence, results remain unclear. The influence of family history of nonbladder cancers and more distant relatives on bladder cancer risk is inconsistent. This research, therefore, aims to increase the understanding of the association between family history and bladder cancer risk based on worldwide case-control studies. In total 4,327 cases and 8,948 non-cases were included. Pooled ORs, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were obtained using multilevel logistic regression models, adjusted by age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and smoking pack-years. The results show bladder cancer risk increased by having a first- or second-degree relative affected with bladder cancer (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.55-4.77 and OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.22-2.40, respectively), and nonurologic cancers (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.19-2.18). Moreover, bladder cancer risk increased by number of cancers affected first-degree relatives (for 1 and >1 first-degree relatives: OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.02-2.04; OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.84-3.86, respectively). Our findings highlight an increased bladder cancer risk for a positive bladder cancer family history in first- and second-degree relatives, and indicate a possible greater effect for an increment of numbers of affected relatives. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study found a positive association between family history and bladder cancer in first- and second-degree relatives, with an added effect attributed to smoking. Given the detriments of bladder cancer, at-risk individuals should receive family history screening and tobacco cessation and avoidance counseling.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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