Waist Circumference, a Body Shape Index, and Molecular Subtypes of Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Four Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Waist circumference (WC) and its allometric counterpart, "a body shape index" (ABSI), are risk factors for colorectal cancer; however, it is uncertain whether associations with these body measurements are limited to specific molecular subtypes of the disease. METHODS: Data from 2,772 colorectal cancer cases and 3,521 controls were pooled from four cohort studies within the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium. Four molecular markers (BRAF mutation, KRAS mutation, CpG island methylator phenotype, and microsatellite instability) were analyzed individually and in combination (Jass types). Multivariable logistic and multinomial logistic models were used to assess the associations of WC and ABSI with overall colorectal cancer risk and, in case-only analyses, to evaluate heterogeneity by molecular subtype, respectively. RESULTS: Higher WC (ORper 5 cm = 1.06, 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.09) and ABSI (ORper 1-SD = 1.07, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.14) were associated with elevated colorectal cancer risk. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between the molecular subtypes. No difference was observed regarding the influence of WC and ABSI on the four major molecular markers in proximal colon, distal colon, and rectal cancers, as well as in early- and late-onset colorectal cancers. Associations did not differ in the Jass-type analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Higher WC and ABSI were associated with elevated colorectal cancer risk; however, they do not differentially influence all four major molecular mutations involved in colorectal carcinogenesis but underscore the importance of maintaining a healthy body weight in colorectal cancer prevention. IMPACT: The proposed results have potential utility in colorectal cancer prevention.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".