Diet and vitamin or mineral supplementation and risk of rectal cancer in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examines the relation of diet and vitamin or mineral supplementation with risk of rectal cancer. Mailed questionnaires were completed by 1 380 newly diagnosed patients with histologically confirmed rectal cancer and 3 097 population controls between 1994 and 1997 in seven Canadian provinces. Measurement included information on socio-economic status, lifestyle, diet and vitamin or mineral supplementation. We derived odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals through unconditional logistic regression. Total of consumption of vegetables, fruit and whole-grain products did not reduce the risk of rectal cancer. Consumption of cruciferous vegetables was inversely associated with risk of rectal cancer among women only, as did chicken intake among men. The strongest dietary association with increased rectal cancer risk appeared in males with increasing total fat intake and in females with bacon intake. Vitamin and mineral supplementation showed significant inverse associations with rectal cancer in women only. These findings suggest that dietary risk factors for rectal cancer in women may differ from those in men.
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".