Vitamin D, calcium and dairy intake, and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma and its precursor conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence is accumulating that vitamin D may be protective against carcinogenesis, although exceptions have been observed for some digestive tract neoplasms. The aim of the present study was to explore the association between dietary vitamin D and related nutrients and the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma and its precursor conditions, Barrett's oesophagus and reflux oesophagitis. In an all-Ireland case-control study conducted between March 2002 and July 2005, 218 oesophageal adenocarcinoma patients, 212 Barrett's oesophagus patients, 208 reflux oesophagitis patients and 252 population-based controls completed a 101-item FFQ, and provided lifestyle and demographic information. Multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to examine the association between dietary intake and disease risk. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk was significantly greater for individuals with the highest compared with the lowest tertile of vitamin D intake (OR 1·99, 95 % CI 1·03, 3·86; P for trend = 0·02). The direct association could not be attributed to a particular vitamin D food source. Vitamin D intake was unrelated to Barrett's oesophagus and reflux oesophagitis risk. No significant associations were observed for Ca or dairy intake and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, Barrett's oesophagus or reflux oesophagitis development. High vitamin D intake may increase oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk but is not related to reflux oesophagitis and Barrett's oesophagus. Ca and dairy product intake did not influence the development of these oesophageal lesions. These findings suggest that there may be population subgroups at an increased risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma if advice to improve vitamin D intake from foods is implemented. Limited work has been conducted in this area, and further research is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".