MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410518245 · doi:10.3390/life15050808

Association Between Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Risk of Overall and Site-Specific Cancers (Pancreatic, Liver, Thyroid, Lung): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4410518245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tian Lv, Yixuan Wen, C.-Y. Liu, Tao Li, Jun Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesThyroid cancerMeta-analysisInternal medicineLung cancerHazard ratioOncologyPancreatic cancerCancerCochrane LibraryDiabetes mellitusObstetricsGynecologyPregnancyConfidence intervalEndocrinologyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common endocrine and metabolic disorder during pregnancy. However, current studies have not reached a consensus on the correlation between GDM and the risk of developing cancers. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the association between GDM and the risk of overall cancer and cancers at specific sites (pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment of the databases to 16 January 2025. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and extracted relevant data. Data were analyzed using STATA Version 17.0. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 8 studies involving 1,936,836 participants. We calculated the pooled hazard ratio (HR) to evaluate the association, and the results showed that the pooled HR for overall cancer risk was 1.16 (95%CI: 1.04–1.28), indicating a significant increase in the risk of overall malignancies among patients with GDM. GDM was also significantly associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer (HR = 2.80; 95%CI: 1.20–6.55), thyroid cancer (HR = 1.21; 95%CI: 1.08–1.36), and liver cancer (HR = 1.33; 95%CI: 1.10–1.61). Additionally, the association between GDM and lung cancer was close to being statistically significant (HR = 1.19; 95%CI: 0.98–1.44). Conclusion: Our study suggests that GDM is associated with an increased risk of overall cancer, as well as pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and liver cancer.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.043
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207