MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121472083 · doi:10.3390/nu6115184

The Role of n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in the Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer

2014· review· en· W2121472083 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiajie Liu, David W.L.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPolyunsaturated fatty acidDocosahexaenoic acidEicosapentaenoic acidBreast cancerCarcinogenesisFish oilCancerLinolenic acidCancer preventionLong chainChemistryMedicineBiochemistryFatty acidFood scienceBiologyInternal medicineFish <Actinopterygii>Linoleic acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer among women worldwide. Dietary fatty acids, especially n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), are believed to play a role in reducing BC risk. Evidence has shown that fish consumption or intake of long-chain n-3 PUFA, such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are beneficial for inhibiting mammary carcinogenesis. The evidence regarding α-linolenic acid (ALA), however, remains equivocal. It is essential to clarify the relation between ALA and cancer since ALA is the principal source of n-3 PUFA in the Western diet and the conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA is not efficient in humans. In addition, the specific anticancer roles of individual n-3 PUFA, alone, have not yet been identified. Therefore, the present review evaluates ALA, EPA and DHA consumed individually as well as in n-3 PUFA mixtures. Also, their role in the prevention of BC and potential anticancer mechanisms of action are examined. Overall, this review suggests that each n-3 PUFA has promising anticancer effects and warrants further research.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations185
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207