MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Relationship between Association between Blood Pressure and Risk of Cancer Development

2022· preprint· en· W4309548090 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCancerBlood pressureMeta-analysisConfoundingOncologyObservational studyRelative riskGastrointestinal cancerColorectal cancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background of the Study: We investigated the link between hypertension and cancer since it has been suggested that hypertension may raise the long-term risk of cancer. Previous large observational cohort studies found that greater blood pressure (BP) was related to a higher risk of cancer. Mendelian randomization (MR) was utilized to produce less confounded blood pressure estimates (BP) on overall and site-specific malignancies. The study aims to draw conclusions on the relationship between high blood pressure and cancer. Methods: Studies on high blood pressure and various malignancies are inconclusive, except for renal cell carcinoma. However, given that most meta-analyses only contained a limited number of trials, some relative risks had small to moderate magnitudes, and several may have been impacted by residual confounding, careful interpretation is necessary. The study was conducted using the meta-analysis technique. Cochran's Q test and I2 test were used to assess statistical heterogeneity between studies in the current investigation for research involving two or more cause and outcome combinations. Results: Positive correlations were also reported between high blood pressure and esophageal adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, liver, and squamous cell carcinoma. However, most studies lacked multivariable adjustments. Physical and numerical risk of cardiovascular disease is linked to bowel cancer but no other cancers. According to a meta-analysis, hypertensive persons could also be at increased danger of gastrointestinal and breast cancer. Most meta-analyses comprised several trials with moderate or mild hazard ratios.ConclusionDifferent types of cancers have been noted to be directly caused by hypertension. In addition, some treatments have also been associated with the side effects of cancer treatments to cause hypertension. Women facing hypertension have an increased risk of getting breast cancer. Although some cancers showed a real relationship with hypertension, others had no connection at all.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it