Risk factors for the occurrence of ampullary tumors: A case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of ampullary tumors is increasing but data on association with an increased exposure to certain risk factors are scanty. OBJECTIVE: To investigate risk and protective factors associated with the occurrence of ampullary tumors and whether these factors differ between ampullary tumors of the intestinal and pancreatobiliary subtypes or between adenomas and carcinomas. METHODS: The association between a large set of exposome features and ampullary tumors occurrence was investigated in a bi-centric case-control study after ethic committee approval and power calculation. RESULTS: In 223 histologically confirmed patients and 446 controls, previous cholecystectomy (odd ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.34-3.20) and proton pump inhibitors use (OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.16-2.37) were associated with increased risk of ampullary tumors, aspirin use (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.36-0.90) and light alcohol intake (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.38-0.76) with reduced risk. A previous cholecystectomy was also associated with tumors of intestinal subtype and with both adenomas and carcinomas, and proton pump inhibitors use with adenomas only. Smoking, body mass index, family history of cancers, previous ulcer, diabetes and use of statins, insulin and metformin were not significant factors. CONCLUSION: This is the first case-control study specifically highlighting factors associated with the occurrence of ampullary tumors. We report factors that are novel and plausible, in keeping with mechanisms described for other gastrointestinal tumors and with potential clinical relevance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".