Integration of observational and causal evidence for the association between adiposity and 17 gastrointestinal outcomes: An umbrella review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We systematically reviewed observational and Mendelian randomization (MR) articles that evaluated the association between obesity and 17 gastrointestinal (GI) diseases to integrate causal and observational evidence. A total of 594 observational studies from 26 systematic reviews and meta‐analyses and nine MR articles were included. For every 5 kg/m 2 increase in body mass index (BMI), there was an increased risk of GI diseases ranging from 2% for rectal cancer (relative risk [RR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.03) to 63% for gallbladder disease (RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.50 to 1.77). MR articles indicated that risks of developing GI diseases elevated with each 1 standard deviation increase in genetically predicted BMI, ranging from 11% for Crohn's disease to 189% for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Moreover, upper GI conditions were less susceptible, whereas hepatobiliary organs were more vulnerable to increased adiposity. Among the associations between obesity and the 17 GI conditions, causal relationships were inferred from only approximately half (10/17, 59%). This study reveals a substantial gap between observational and causal evidence, indicating that a combined approach is necessary to effectively inform public health policies and guide epidemiological research on obesity and GI diseases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".