Risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), which means colorectal cancer diagnosed in patients under 50 years, has been increasing around the world. However, the etiology remains unclear. This study aims to identify risk factors for EOCRC. Methods This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 25, 2022. We examined risk factors for EOCRC, including demographic factors, chronic conditions, and lifestyle behaviors or environmental factors. Random-effects/fixed-effects meta-analysis was adopted to combine effect estimates from published data. Study quality was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Statistical analysis was performed Revman5.3. Studies not suitable for the meta-analysis were analyzed by a systematic review. Results A total of 36 studies were identified for this review, and 30 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Significant risk factors for EOCRC included male (OR=1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.33), Caucasian (OR=1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.80), a family history of CRC (OR=5.90; 95% CI, 3.67-9.48), inflammatory bowel disease (OR=4.43; 95% CI, 4.05-4.84), obesity (OR=1.52; 95%CI, 1.20-1.91), overweight (OR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.25), triglycerides (OR=1.12; 95% CI, 1, 08-1.18), hypertension (OR=1.16; 95% CI, 1.12-1.21), metabolic syndrome (OR=1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.45), smoking (OR=1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.88), alcohol consumption (OR=1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.62), a sedentary lifestyle (OR=1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.46), red meat (OR=1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.16), processed meat (OR=1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.06), Western dietary patterns (OR=1.43; 95% CI, 1.18-1.73) and sugar-sweetened beverages (OR=1.55; 95% CI, 1.23-1.95). However, no statistical differences were found for hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia. Vitamin D may be a protective factor (OR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). There was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I 2 >60%). Conclusions The study provides an overview of the etiology and risk factors of EOCRC. Current evidence can provide baseline data for risk prediction models specific to EOCRC and risk-tailored screening strategies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".