<i>Trans</i>-fatty acids and cancer: a mini-review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between trans-fatty acids (TFA) and cancer risk is poorly understood and remains controversial. It is recognised that unique biological effects are associated with specific isoforms within families of fatty acids such as those belonging to the n-3 fatty acids. Furthermore, the interactions between diet and genetic polymorphisms are increasingly recognised for their potential risk-modifying effects on human health and disease. Therefore, the aim of the present review is to evaluate whether specific TFA isomers and genetic polymorphisms differentially modify cancer risk in prostate, colon and breast cancers in animal and human models. Potential mechanisms of action by which TFA may affect cancer development are also reviewed. Overall, across a number of experimental models and human studies, there is insufficient and inconsistent evidence linking specific TFA isomers to cancers of the prostate, colon and breast. A number of methodological limitations and experimental considerations were identified which may explain the inconsistencies observed across these studies. Therefore, further research is warranted to accurately assess the relationship between TFA and cancer risk.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".