Thiazide Diuretics and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence from clinical trials and observational studies on the association between thiazide diuretics and colorectal cancer risk is conflicting. We aimed to determine whether thiazide diuretics are associated with an increased colorectal cancer risk compared with dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (dCCBs). A population-based, new-user cohort was assembled using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Between 1990-2018, we compared thiazide diuretic initiators with dCCB initiators and estimated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of colorectal cancer using Cox proportional hazard models. Models were weighted using standardized morbidity ratio weights generated from calendar time-specific propensity scores. The cohort included 377,760 thiazide diuretic initiators and 364,300 dCCB initiators, generating 3,619,883 person-years of follow-up. Compared with dCCBs, thiazide diuretics were not associated with colorectal cancer (weighted HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04). Secondary analyses yielded similar results, although an increased risk was observed among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (weighted HR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 5.35) and potentially polyps (weighted HR = 1.46, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.30). Compared with dCCBs, thiazide diuretics were not associated with an overall increased colorectal cancer risk. While these findings provide some reassurance, research is needed to corroborate the elevated risks observed among patients with inflammatory bowel disease and history of polyps.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".