Epidemiology, Risk Factors for Gastric Cancer and Surveillance of Premalignant Gastric Lesions: A Prospective Cohort Study of Central Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Saudi Arabia (SA) is a country with a low incidence of gastric cancer (GC). In this study, we sought to assess the epidemiology of GC, its clinicopathological profiles, and its association with risk factors as well as to identify premalignant gastric lesions (PGL) and examine neoplastic progression. (2) Methods: This five-year prospective study screened for GC and PGL in asymptomatic Saudi patients, aged 45-75 years (n = 35,640) and living in Al Kharj, Riyadh province in central SA. Those who were positive in a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HSgFOBT+) and had negative results in colonoscopy offered to undergo upper GI endoscopy (n = 1242). Factors associated with GC were examined. (3) Results: The five-year participation rate was 87% (1080/1242). The incidence rate of GC was 26.9 new cases per 100,000 population per year (9.6 new cases per year/total population at risk-35,640), and it was 8.9 cases per 1000 persons per year among the 1080 subjects with HSgFOBT+ and negative colonoscopy results. The five-year mortality rate was 67% among patients with GC (n = 48), 3.0% among participants in the gastric screening program (n = 1080) and 0.09% among the original population participating in the colorectal screening program (n = 35,640). Intestinal-type adenocarcinoma was the most frequent type (77%), with the tumor most commonly located in the antrum (41%). Overall, 334 participants had PGL, and seven of them (2.1%) showed neoplastic progression to GC during the follow-up. Factors associated with GC were age, Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection, obesity (body mass index BMI > 30), smoking, a diet of salty preserved foods, low income and a family history of GC. (4) Conclusions: The incidence of GC is low in central SA, but screening for PGL and GC among patients with HSgFOBT+ and negative colonoscopy may prevent or result in the early treatment of GC. HP eradication, normal body weight, not smoking and adhering to a healthy diet can reduce the risk of GC. The resulting data provide important input for the improvement of national guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".