MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2022· preprint· en· W4309548090 on OpenAlexaff
Nikolaos Tzenios, Mary Tazanios, Mohamad Chahine

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations162
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207