Presidential Posters and Posters of Distinction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past three decades, incidence rates for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EADC) have increased steadily in North America.We conducted a 2-year prospective case-control study to test the hypothesis that dietary and lifestyle factors contribute to susceptibility for progression to EADC.We also studied patients with the precursor lesion, Barrett's esophagus (BE), and with clinically symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a well recognized risk factor associated with BE and EADC.Between 02/2001 and 02/2003, a total of 431 individuals were enrolled, with informed consent, in a hospital-based case-control study.Cases comprised patients with GERD (n=142), BE (n=130), and EADC (n=57), defined according to stringent clinicopathologic criteria.Controls comprised 102 healthy, strictly defined asymptomatic individuals from the same geographic region.For each participant, a 102-point structured questionnaire was administered, including sociodemographic information, family and medical history, body mass index (BMI), and lifestyle risk factors including tobacco and alcohol consumption, dietary intake and physical activity.The importance of dietary and lifestyle risk factors in GERD, BE and EADC was calculated using multivariate logistic regression.Obesity was independently associated with a significant increased risk for EADC (OR, 4.67; 95% CI,).Diets with high vitamin C content decreased the risk for GERD (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.87),BE (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.98),and EADC (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77).Multivitamin supplementation additionally reduced the risk of EADC (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.90).For the more established risk factors, we confirmed that smoking was associated with increased risk for EADC (OR, 3.86, 95% CI, 1.23-12.10),and that increased alcohol (liquor) consumption was a risk factor for GERD (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.05-6.92)and BE (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.23-7.62).We conclude 1) that obesity, cigarette smoking and increased consumption of liquor are significant predictors of risk for progression of GERD and BE to EADC, and 2) that increased dietary vitamin C and multivitamin supplementation may be protective and reduce the risk for progression to EADC in this patient population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.414 | 0.240 |
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".