MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dietary flavonoid for preventing colorectal neoplasms

2012· review· en· W1939197356 on OpenAlex
Heiying Jin, Qiang Leng, Chunbo Li

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFlavonoids in Medical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyColorectal adenomaColorectal cancerCochrane LibraryIncidence (geometry)Prospective cohort studyCINAHLRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCohort studyCancerEnvironmental healthPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Flavonoids are polyphenolic compounds that are distributed widely in the plant kingdom; they are especially abundant in fruits and vegetables. More than 5,000 individual flavonoids have been identified and classified into more than 10 subgroups according to their chemical structure. Flavonoids have many possible biological effects that may play a role in cancer prevention. Prior studies have suggested that a high intake of flavonoids may help prevent cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of dietary flavonoids on the incidence of colorectal adenoma and CRC. SEARCH METHODS: Eligible studies were searched up until July 2011 in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and other CINAHL databases and reference lists of previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: All prospective, controlled interventional studies and observational studies that either assessed the association between flavonoids and risk of CRC incidence or colorectal adenoma recurrence were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two investigators independently reviewed the material and extracted the data according to the inclusion criteria; in addition, the methodological quality of the studies was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies with 390,769 participants were included. Five studies used a prospective cohort design, two were case-control studies and one a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The methodological quality was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The three prospective cohort studies were of high methodological quality, and two were of medium quality. The two case-control studies were of medium methodological quality.The results form the studies assessing associations between flavonoids, colorectal cancer and adenomas were contradictory. There was no evidence that total flavonoid intake reduced the risk of colorectal neoplasms. The evidence for Isoflavones, Flavonols, Flavones and Flavanones was conflicting. For Flavan-3-ols, the results from two studies suggested that increased intake of Flavan-3-ols reduced the risk of both CRC and colorectal adenomas. A statistically significant reduced risk of CRC was found with high intake of epicatechin. There was medium quality evidence to support that increased intake of procyanidin and phytoestrogen could reduced the incidence of CRC. There was no evidence that suggested that high anthocyanin intake had an inverse association with colorectal adenomas. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient and conflicting evidence regarding flavonoid intake and the prevention of colorectal neoplasms. It is difficult to determine flavonoid intake. Therefore, more evidence is needed to clarify the association between flavonoids and colorectal neoplasms.

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.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.223 · 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