Correlation between allergic rhinitis or hay fever and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between allergies and cancer is contradictory, whereas some forms of cancer have inverse associations with allergies. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most prevalent form of allergy, and lung cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer with the highest mortality rate. Recent studies have reported a positive association between asthma and lung cancer; however, this association is inconclusive. Furthermore, AR is positively associated with asthma; therefore, our research question was to explore whether there is any correlation between AR and lung cancer epidemiologically. METHODS: After a rigorous search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, 7 eligible articles were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, including 4724 cases and 9059 controls, 5 from the USA, and one each from Canada and Germany. RESULTS: Pooled analysis (OR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.45-0.68; P value < .00001) showed a strong inverse relationship between AR and lung cancer. CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis suggests an inverse relationship between AR and lung cancer; however, new epidemiological studies are required to observe the current scenario more comprehensively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".