Body mass index and molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is an established risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), but the evidence for the association is inconsistent across molecular subtypes of the disease. METHODS: We pooled data on body mass index (BMI), tumor microsatellite instability status, CpG island methylator phenotype status, BRAF and KRAS mutations, and Jass classification types for 11 872 CRC cases and 11 013 controls from 11 observational studies. We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for covariables. RESULTS: Higher BMI was associated with increased CRC risk (OR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.22). The positive association was stronger for men than women but similar across tumor subtypes defined by individual molecular markers. In analyses by Jass type, higher BMI was associated with elevated CRC risk for types 1-4 cases but not for type 5 CRC cases (considered familial-like/Lynch syndrome microsatellite instability-H, CpG island methylator phenotype-low or negative, BRAF-wild type, KRAS-wild type, OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.20). This pattern of associations for BMI and Jass types was consistent by sex and design of contributing studies (cohort or case-control). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous reports with fewer study participants, we found limited evidence of heterogeneity for the association between BMI and CRC risk according to molecular subtype, suggesting that obesity influences nearly all major pathways involved in colorectal carcinogenesis. The null association observed for the Jass type 5 suggests that BMI is not a risk factor for the development of CRC for individuals with Lynch syndrome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".