MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133100716

Excess body weight, exogenous hormones, and polymorphisms in steroid metabolism: Links with hereditary colorectal cancer

2007· dissertation· W7133100716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Todd Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2007
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerCancerHormonePopulationObesityFamily historyRisk factorMicrosatellite instability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consistent with the theme of hormonal influence on colorectal cancer, the second objective in this thesis sought to identify the associations between risk of incident colorectal cancer and exogenous hormone-use (hormonal contraceptives and postmenopausal hormone-use). As above, a case-control study design was implemented. Hormonal contraceptives (OR: 0.79) and postmenopausal hormones (OR: 0.67) were inversely linked with colorectal cancer risk. The reduced risks were quite consistent across subgroups of familial risk of cancer and microsatellite instability status. A potential age effect was indicated for age at first use of hormonal contraceptives; women who began using these agents prior to age 22 years experienced a greater reduced risk of colorectal cancer (OR: 0.6) than did women who initiated use at age>30 y (OR: 0.92). The objective of this thesis was to examine the influence of hormonal factors on the risk of colorectal cancer from three perspectives. First, adiposity, height, and weight gain (e.g. indicators of endogenous hormone exposure) were assessed as risk factors for incident colorectal cancer in a population based case-control study from Ontario and Newfoundland. Self-reported family history of cancer and information on lifestyle and demographic factors were collected; data were used from 2,696 cases and 2,668 controls. Colorectal cancer was positively linked with obesity (ORs: 1.75 and 1.82; recent and past BMI, respectively) and weight gain since age 20 years (OR: 1.59) in men; the observed risks were consistent in subgroups of familial risk of cancer and tumour microsate1lite instability status. Among women, no associations were observed between adiposity or weight gain and colorectal cancer risk. The null associations persisted in premenopausal and postmenopausal women, and across strata of familial risk of cancer and microsatellite instability. Height, however, was positively linked with disease risk in women (OR: 2.36). That obesity was associated with increased risk in men, but not in women, may be explained by androgen conversion to estradiol in the adipocyte, as several lines of evidence suggest that estrogen-related hormones are inversely linked with colorectal cancer risk. These data provide support for a hormonal influence on colorectal tumourigenesis. From a clinical and public health perspective, these findings suggest that men who are overweight or obese and who report a familial risk of cancer may represent a key group for interventions aimed at the prevention and control of colorectal cancer. The third objective of this work was motivated by evidence that common variation in certain genes correlates with hormone levels. Since genotype is constant, genotypic variation may act as a proxy measure for lifetime exposure to steroid hormones. A candidate gene approach was selected to address whether or not common variants in genes involved in steroid production (CYP17) and estrogen metabolism (COMT) were linked with age at onset of colon cancer among a cohort of confirmed Lynch syndrome mutation carriers in Newfoundland and Labrador (n = 153). This cohort experiences a dramatic predilection to colon and certain extracolonic cancers. The variant allele in CYP17 was linked with earlier age at colon cancer onset and overall increased risk of colon cancer (HR: 3.83). The COMT variant was not related to the outcomes in this thesis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→