MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377220184 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1132306

Risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4377220184 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineColorectal cancerOverweightFamily historyCochrane LibraryObesityIncidence (geometry)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.301 · 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