The impact of moderate wine consumption on the risk of developing prostate cancer
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Mihai Dorin Vartolomei,1,2,* Shoji Kimura,2,3,* Matteo Ferro,4 Beat Foerster,2,5 Mohammad Abufaraj,2,6 Alberto Briganti,7 Pierre I Karakiewicz,8 Shahrokh F Shariat2,9,10,11 1Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Tirgu Mures, Romania; 2Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 3Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan; 4Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; 5Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland; 6Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; 7Department of Urology, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; 8Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; 9Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; 10 Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; 11Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA *These authors contributed equally to this work Objective: To investigate the impact of moderate wine consumption on the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). We focused on the differential effect of moderate consumption of red versus white wine.Design: This study was a meta-analysis that includes data from case–control and cohort studies.Materials and methods: A systematic search of Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane library was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were deemed eligible if they assessed the risk of PCa due to red, white, or any wine using multivariable logistic regression analysis. We performed a formal meta-analysis for the risk of PCa according to moderate wine and wine type consumption (white or red). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane’s Q test and I2 statistics. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s regression test.Results: A total of 930 abstracts and titles were initially identified. After removal of duplicates, reviews, and conference abstracts, 83 full-text original articles were screened. Seventeen studies (611,169 subjects) were included for final evaluation and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In the case of moderate wine consumption: the pooled risk ratio (RR) for the risk of PCa was 0.98 (95% CI 0.92–1.05, p=0.57) in the multivariable analysis. Moderate white wine consumption increased the risk of PCa with a pooled RR of 1.26 (95% CI 1.10–1.43, p=0.001) in the multivariable analysis. Meanwhile, moderate red wine consumption had a protective role reducing the risk by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78–0.999, p=0.047) in the multivariable analysis that comprised 222,447 subjects.Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, moderate wine consumption did not impact the risk of PCa. Interestingly, regarding the type of wine, moderate consumption of white wine increased the risk of PCa, whereas moderate consumption of red wine had a protective effect. Further analyses are needed to assess the differential molecular effect of white and red wine conferring their impact on PCa risk. Keywords: wine, prostate cancer, alcohol, risk of cancer, meta-analysis
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle