Selected Articles from This Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast cancer have been developed specifically in women of European ancestry. In this study, Huang and colleagues assessed the latest PRS panels developed in populations of European and Asian ancestry in combined analyses of multiple Hispanic/Latinx studies from different countries and with different proportions of genetic ancestry. Results suggest that it is more important to discover ancestry-specific variants and add them to existing models than to refine existing models by ancestry proportions of individuals. This approach has the important practical advantage of making the implementation of PRS in clinical settings more straightforward without worrying about estimating the genetic ancestry portions of individuals.In Canada, colorectal cancer is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer, but the relationship between socioeconomic status and colorectal cancer screening in Canada remains poorly understood. This study by Jalili and colleagues aimed to measure and explain the extent of socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation in Ontario, Canada among adults aged 50 to 74 years utilizing cross-sectional data from the 2017 to 2018 Canadian Community Health Survey. The study found that income is the primary driver of socioeconomic inequality, requiring targeted strategies to boost screening rates among low-income residents. Results suggest that addressing education and language barriers through awareness initiatives and language support can reduce socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening uptake in Ontario.Comparisons of nicotine and toxicant exposure between people who use different alternative tobacco products remain underexplored. This cross-sectional, multi-country study by Miller and colleagues analyzed urinary metabolites of nicotine, NNK, and volatile organic compounds among established users in Japan and Canada. Exclusive use of alternative tobacco products results in significant nicotine exposure but substantially lower toxicant exposure compared to exclusive combustible cigarettes use. Exposure patterns between two popular alternative tobacco products differ. People who use heated tobacco products in Japan may experience higher exposure to nicotine and certain toxicants than people who use nicotine vaping products in Canada. The overall toxicant exposure from alternative tobacco products is lower than combustible cigarettes, providing critical data for regulatory decisions and public health considerations.The growing population of male adolescent and young adult cancer survivors has increased interest in their reproductive health. However, studies have reported conflicting findings on the potential risks of cancer and its treatments on birth and obstetric outcomes. This study by Kao and colleagues aims to investigate whether a paternal history of cancer during adolescence or young adulthood is associated with adverse outcomes in the offspring. This nationwide, retrospective, population-based cohort study integrated data from three major Taiwanese databases. Results show that paternal cancer history during adolescence or young adulthood does not appear to increase offspring’s risk of adverse birth or obstetric outcomes. This study provides valuable insights for oncology and reproductive medicine, potentially influencing patient counseling and guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.615 | 0.413 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".