MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015187968 · doi:10.1002/ijc.21058

Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplementation and prostate cancer prevention in the SU.VI.MAX trial

2005· article· en· W2015187968 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalProstate-specific antigenCancerUrologyProstateVitaminGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialVitamin EEndocrinologyPhysiologyGynecologyOncologyAntioxidantBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized trials have shown, unexpectedly, that supplementation with selenium or vitamin E is associated with a reduction of prostate cancer risk. We assess whether a supplementation with low doses of antioxidant vitamins and minerals could reduce the occurrence of prostate cancer and influence biochemical markers. The SU.VI.MAX trial comprised 5,141 men randomized to take either a placebo or a supplementation with nutritional doses of vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, selenium and zinc daily for 8 years. Biochemical markers of prostate cancer risk such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) were measured on plasma samples collected at enrollment and at the end of follow-up from 3,616 men. Cox regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratio and related 95% confidence interval of prostate cancer associated with the supplementation and to examine whether the effect differed among predetermined susceptible subgroups. During the follow-up, 103 cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed. Overall, there was a moderate nonsignificant reduction in prostate cancer rate associated with the supplementation (hazard ratio = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.60-1.29). However, the effect differed significantly between men with normal baseline PSA (< 3 microg/L) and those with elevated PSA (p = 0.009). Among men with normal PSA, there was a marked statistically significant reduction in the rate of prostate cancer for men receiving the supplements (hazard ratio = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.29-0.92). In men with elevated PSA at baseline, the supplementation was associated with an increased incidence of prostate cancer of borderline statistical significance (hazard ratio = 1.54; 95% CI = 0.87-2.72). The supplementation had no effect on PSA or IGF levels. Our findings support the hypothesis that chemoprevention of prostate cancer can be achieved with nutritional doses of antioxidant vitamins and minerals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.350 · 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