MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052123873 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604110

Dietary iron and haem iron intake and risk of endometrial cancer: a prospective cohort study

2007· article· en· W2052123873 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey C. Kabat, Anthony B. Miller, M. Jain, Thomas E. Rohan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsEndometrial cancerMedicineProspective cohort studyRed meatDietary ironCohortCohort studyProportional hazards modelCancerPhysiologyInternal medicineIron deficiencyEnvironmental healthAnemiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used data from a large cohort study of Canadian women to assess the association of meat intake and dietary intake of iron and haem iron with risk of endometrial cancer. Among 34,148 women with an intact uterus at baseline and followed for a mean of 16.4 years, we identified 426 incident endometrial cancer cases. Data from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline were used to calculate intake of all meats, red meat, total dietary iron, iron from meat, haem iron, and non-haem iron. Analyses were carried out using Cox proportional hazards models with adjustment for known risk factors and covariates. We found no association of intake of meat or any of the dietary iron-related variables with risk of endometrial 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207