Effectiveness of whole grain consumption in the prevention of colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of whole grain consumption in preventing colorectal cancer. A systematic review with meta-analysis of 11 cohort studies was carried out. The age group of the population studied (1,719,590 participants) was between 25 and 76 years of age. The review evaluated the relative risks with the Cox proportional hazard model. The period of study varied from 6 to 16 years, where 7,745 persons developed colorectal cancer during the follow-up period. In the multivariate analysis, the highest quintile relative risk was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.03), whereas that for the lowest quintile was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.04). The location of tumors was also evaluated, with tumors in the colon demonstrating a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.02) and tumors in the recto a relative risk equal to 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.00). In this multivariate analysis, consumption of whole grains was inversely associated with the risk of developing colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".