Dietary supplement use among cancer survivors of the NutriNet-Santé cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary supplements (DS) may influence cancer prognosis. Their use in cancer patients has been described in the United States, but data are largely lacking in Europe and notably in France. The present study's objectives were (1) to assess DS use and its sociodemographic, lifestyle, and dietary correlates in a large sample of French cancer survivors; (2) to evaluate the involvement of physicians in such DS use; and (3) to assess the extent of potentially harmful practices. Data were collected by self-administered web-based questionnaires among participants of the NutriNet-Santé cohort. Data on DS use was available for 1081 cancer survivors. DS users were compared to non-users with unconditional logistic regressions. DS use was reported by 62% of women and 29% of men. Vitamins D, B6, C and Mg were the most frequently consumed nutrients. 14% of cancer survivors initiated DS use after diagnosis. For 35% of the DS consumed, subjects did not inform their attending physician. DS use was associated with a healthier lifestyle (normal weight, never smoking and better diet) and substantially contributed to nutrient intake. 18% of DS users had potentially harmful DS use practices, such as the simultaneous use of vitamin E and anticoagulant/antiplatelet agents, the use of β-carotene and smoking or the use of phyto-oestrogens in hormone-dependent cancer patients. The present study suggests that DS use is widespread among cancer survivors, a large amount of that use is performed without any medical supervision and a substantial proportion of that use involves potentially harmful practices. Physicians should be encouraged to more routinely discuss DS use with their cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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".