Dietary patterns and risk of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary patterns reflect combinations of dietary exposures, and here we examine these in relation to prostate cancer risk. In a case-control study, 80 incident primary prostate cancer cases and 334 urology clinic controls were enrolled from 1997 through 1999 in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Food-frequency questionnaires were completed prior to diagnosis and assessed intake in the 1-year period 2-3 years prior to enrollment. Among controls, dietary intake was used in principal components analyses to identify patterns that were then evaluated with all subjects in relation to prostate cancer risk using unconditional logistic regression, controlling for age. Four dietary patterns were identified: Healthy Living, Traditional Western, Processed and Beverages. Increased prostate cancer risk is apparent in relation to the Processed pattern, composed of processed meats, red meats, organ meats, refined grains, white bread, onions and tomatoes, vegetable oil and juice, soft drinks and bottled water. The OR for the highest tertile compared to baseline is 2.75 (95% CI 1.40-5.39), with a dose-response pattern (trend test p < 0.0035). Our results suggest that a dietary pattern including refined grain products, processed meats and red and organ meats contributes to increased prostate cancer risk. Since dietary information was collected before subjects knew their diagnosis, recall bias was avoided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".