MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400192182 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2024-bsg.349

P267 The association between obesity and malignant progression of barrett’s oesophagus: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4400192182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mie Thu Ko, Tom Thomas, Emily Holden, Ian Beales, Leo Alexandre

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisAssociation (psychology)MedicineBarrett's oesophagusObesityInternal medicineOncologyPsychologyCancerAdenocarcinomaPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Barrett’s oeosphagus (BO) is the precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), a malignancy with a poor overall prognosis. Endoscopic surveillance of patients with BO aims to detect dysplasia and OAC to improve long-term outcomes. However, the majority of patients with BO do not progress to cancer. It is therefore important to establish the relevant clinical risk factors for malignant progression in this cohort to enable risk stratification and facilitate a personalised approach to management. While obesity is an independent risk factor for both BO and OAC, the role of obesity in the malignant progression of BO is unclear. We undertook a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis to estimate the association between obesity and malignant progression in patients with BO. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases via the OVID interface to December 2023. Studies which reported the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the progression of BO (no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia[LGD] at baseline) to HGD or OAC were included. Two-stage dose-response meta-analysis was performed to estimate the association between BMI and malignant progression. Study quality was appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017051046). Results 20 studies reported the association between obesity and malignant progression of BO were included, comprising 39156 patients with baseline non-dysplastic BO or LGD, of whom 1689 progressed to HGD/OAC. Each 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with a 4% increase in malignant progression to HGD or OAC (unadjusted OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07; p<0.001; I2 57.2%). The association remained consistent after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10; p<0.001; I2 0%). Nineteen studies were considered moderate to high quality. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that obesity as measured by BMI is associated with malignant progression of BO with a dose-response relationship. The findings from our study are consistent with mechanistic evidence for the role of obesity in the pathogenesis of OAC. Future risk prediction models could incorporate measures of obesity to potentially improve risk stratification in patients with BO. Weight loss might reduce the risk of malignant progression in patients with BO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.031
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentations→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→