MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389056464 · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17275-2

Abdominal obesity and digestive system cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

2023· review· en· W4389056464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xue Li, Yajun Lian, Weiwei Ping, Kunbo Wang, Lingyan Jiang, Shaoxia Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWaistAbdominal obesityInternal medicineMeta-analysisCohort studyProspective cohort studyWaist–hip ratioSubgroup analysisCancerObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207