The Association Between Obesity and Malignant Progression of Barrett’s Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Obesity is a risk factor for both Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, it is unclear whether obesity drives the malignant progression of BE. We aimed to assess whether obesity is associated with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer in patients with BE. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception through April 2024 for studies reporting the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the progression of nondysplastic BE or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) to HGD or EAC. A 2-stage dose-response meta-analysis was performed to estimate the dose-response relationship between BMI with malignant progression. Study quality was appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: = 0%). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis provides some evidence that obesity as measured by BMI is associated with malignant progression of BE with a dose-response relationship. This finding requires confirmation in future high-quality cohort studies. Future risk prediction models could incorporate measures of obesity to potentially improve risk stratification in patients with BE. PROSPERO, Number: CRD42017051046.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".