MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386818390 · doi:10.15537/1658-3175.8235

Robust analysis challenges theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer risk

2023· article· en· W4386818390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Medical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)AnxietyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust analysis challenges theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer riskAUGUST 07, 2023 -Depression and anxiety are thought to increase a person's risk of developing cancer, but research results have been inconclusive.In an analysis of multiple studies from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, investigators found that depression and anxiety are not linked to higher risks for most types of cancer among this population.The analysis is published by Wiley online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society.Experts have suspected that depression and anxiety may increase cancer risk by affecting a person's health-related behaviors or by having biological effects on the body that support cancer development.Some research has supported an association between depression, anxiety, and cancer incidence, while other investigations have found no or negligible associations.To provide additional insights, Lonneke A. van Tuijl, PhD, of the University Medical Center Groningen, and her colleagues examined data from the international Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence consortium, which includes information from 18 prospective study groups with more than 300,000 adults from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada.The team found no associations between depression or anxiety and overall, breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers during a follow-up of up to 26 years.The presence of depression or anxiety was linked with a 6% higher risk of developing lung cancer and smokingrelated cancers, but this risk was substantially reduced after adjusting for other cancer-related risk factors including smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index.Therefore, this analysis supports the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression."Our results may come as a relief to many patients with cancer who believe their diagnosis is attributed to previous anxiety or depression," said Dr. van Tuijl."However, further research is needed to understand exactly how depression, anxiety, health behaviors, and lung cancer are related.

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.083 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Medical JournalSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207