Nutrition and lung cancer: a case control study in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite many prospective and retrospective studies about the association of dietary habit and lung cancer, the topic still remains controversial. So, this study aims to investigate the association of lung cancer with dietary factors. METHOD: In this study 242 lung cancer patients and their 484 matched controls on age, sex, and place of residence were enrolled between October 2002 to 2005. Trained physicians interviewed all participants with standardized questionnaires. The middle and upper third consumer groups were compared to the lower third according to the distribution in controls unless the linear trend was significant across exposure groups. RESULT: Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the association with lung cancer. In a multivariate analysis fruit (Ptrend < 0.0001), vegetable (P = 0.001) and sunflower oil (P = 0.006) remained as protective factors and rice (P = 0.008), bread (Ptrend = 0.04), liver (P = 0.004), butter (Ptrend = 0.04), white cheese (Ptrend < 0.0001), beef (Ptrend = 0.005), vegetable ghee (P < 0.0001) and, animal ghee (P = 0.015) remained as risk factors of lung cancer. Generally, we found positive trend between consumption of beef (P = 0.002), bread (P < 0.0001), and dairy products (P < 0.0001) with lung cancer. In contrast, only fruits were inversely related to lung cancer (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: It seems that vegetables, fruits, and sunflower oil could be protective factors and bread, rice, beef, liver, dairy products, vegetable ghee, and animal ghee found to be possible risk factors for the development of lung cancer in Iran.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".