The relationship between metabolic syndrome and its components with bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previous meta-analysis, entitled "The association between metabolic syndrome and bladder cancer susceptibility and prognosis: an updated comprehensive evidence synthesis of 95 observational studies involving 97,795,299 subjects," focused on all observational studies, whereas in the present meta-analysis, we focused on cohort studies to obtain more accurate and stronger evidence to evaluate the association between metabolic syndrome and its components with bladder cancer. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies on the association between metabolic syndrome and its components with bladder cancer from January 1, 2000 through May 23, 2021. The pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure this relationship using a random-effects meta-analytic model. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In total, 56 studies were included. A statistically significant relationship was found between metabolic syndrome and bladder cancer 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.17), and there was evidence of moderate heterogeneity among these studies. Our findings also indicated statistically significant relationships between diabetes (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.31) and hypertension (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.13) with bladder cancer, but obesity and overweight did not present a statistically significant relationship with bladder cancer. We found no evidence of publication bias. Our analysis demonstrated statistically significant relationships between metabolic syndrome and the risk of bladder cancer. Furthermore, diabetes and hypertension were associated with the risk of bladder 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| 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".