Cooking Methods and Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in High-Risk Areas of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooking methods have been implicated in the etiology of gastrointestinal cancers, reflecting exposure to potential carcinogens as results of cooking. We used a validated food frequency questionnaire and a pretested cooking method questionnaire in 3 groups: 40 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) cases from a high-risk area in northeast of Iran, 40 healthy subjects from the same high-risk area, and 40 healthy subjects from a low-risk area in Southern Iran. We compared the frequency of boiling, grilling, and frying, and the frying score among these 3 groups. We also calculated "frying index" by multiplying the frequency of each fried food item by its frying score. Mean frying to boiling ratios were 18.2:1, 12.8:1, and 2.6:1 for cases, high-risk controls, and low-risk controls, respectively (P < 0.01). Reuse of cooking oil for frying was reported in 37.5% of the ESCC cases, 25% of high-risk controls, and 7.5% of low-risk controls (P < 0.001). Frying index was higher in the high-risk than in the low-risk controls (P < 0.001) and in cases than in the high-risk controls (P < 0.05) after adjusting for smoking, opium use, rural residence, education, and ethnicity. High-temperature cooking and frying may be associated with increased risk of ESCC in high-risk areas.
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) | 0.000 | 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".