MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410589675 · doi:10.7759/cureus.84610

Obesity-Associated Cancers: A United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) Database Analysis

2025· article· en· W4410589675 on OpenAlexaff
Jane N Nwafor, A. Figueroa, Okelue E Okobi, Gift Ojukwu, Edamisan J Fanegan, Robert Nyamekye-Affel, Oluwatobiloba Omotunde, Grace N Mamah, Nneka Muoghalu

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObesityCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for various cancers, contributing to significant public health burdens. Disparities in obesity-associated cancer incidence exist across racial, age, and geographic groups, necessitating targeted prevention and intervention strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the incidence rates of obesity-associated cancers across different racial, age, and geographic groups in the United States from 2017 to 2021, identifying key disparities to inform public health interventions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of cancer incidence data from national registries was conducted. Age-adjusted incidence rates (per 100,000 population) were calculated across racial/ethnic groups, age cohorts, and US states. Descriptive statistics and confidence intervals were used to assess disparities. RESULTS: Black, non-Hispanic individuals had the highest obesity-associated cancer incidence (184.8 per 100,000), followed by American Indian/Alaska Native populations (179.3 per 100,000). Incidence rates increased with age, peaking at 75-79 years (788.7 per 100,000 overall). Geographically, Midwestern and Southern states exhibited higher incidence rates, with West Virginia reporting the highest (188.3 per 100,000) and Nevada the lowest (149.5 per 100,000). These findings highlight significant racial, age, and regional disparities. CONCLUSION: The study underscores the need for targeted public health strategies, including enhanced screening, culturally tailored interventions, and policy-driven approaches to address obesity and its related cancer risks. Future research should explore individual-level risk factors and effective interventions to promote equitable healthcare access and improved cancer outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueCureusSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207