Abdominal obesity and digestive system cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic criteria for abdominal obesity are usually waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio. The magnitude of the risks for cancers of the digestive system and abdominal obesity is unknown. To assess whether abdominal obesity increases the risk of digestive cancer, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies in a database. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception to December 2022. The 9-star Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed or random effect models respectively. The stability of the results was explored by one-by-one exclusion. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated by Begg's and Egger's tests. RESULTS: A total of 43 cohort studies were included. There were 42 and 31 studies in the meta-analysis of waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio on digestive system cancer, respectively. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the greater waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio were correlated with increased incidence of digestive system cancers: waist circumference: RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.38-1.59, p < 0.001; waist-to-hip ratio: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.28-1.38, p = 0.001. Subgroup analysis by cancer type showed that higher WC and WHR would increase the prevalence of LC, PC, GC, EC, and CRC. The sensitivity analysis was conducted by a one-by-one elimination method, and the results of the meta-analysis remained stable. It is proved that the results were robust by the trim-and-fill method. CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence to suggest that abdominal obesity increased the incidence of digestive cancer, it is necessary to take appropriate measures to reduce abdominal obesity. Waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio may be better predictors of digestive system cancers. However, the association between waist circumference and digestive system cancer was greater, so more attention should be paid to measuring abdominal obesity with waist circumference.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".