Does Opium Consumption Have Shared Impact on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and cancer are seemingly different types of disease, they have multiple shared underlying mechanisms and lifestyle-related risk factors like smoking, unhealthy diet, excessive alcohol consumption, and inadequate physical activity. Opium abuse is prevalent in developing countries, especially the Middle East region and many Asian countries. Besides recreational purposes, many people use opium based on a traditional belief that opium consumption may confer protection against heart attack and improve the control of the risk factors of ASCVD such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. However, scientific reports indicate an increased risk of ASCVD and poor control of ASCVD risk factors among opium abusers compared with nonusers. Moreover, there is accumulating evidence that opium consumption exerts potential carcinogenic effects and increases the risk of developing various types of cancer. We conducted a review of the literature to review the current evidence on the relationship between opium consumption and ASCVD as well as various kinds of cancer. In addition, we will discuss the potential shared pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the association between opium abuse and both ASCVD and cancer.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".