Folate intake, alcohol consumption, and the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T gene polymorphism: influence on prostate cancer risk and interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Folate is essential to DNA methylation and synthesis and may have a complex dualistic role in prostate cancer. Alcohol use may increase risk and epigenetic factors may interact with lifestyle exposures. We aimed to characterize the independent and joint effects of folate intake, alcohol consumption, and the MTHFR C677T gene polymorphism on prostate cancer risk, while accounting for intakes of vitamins B(2), B(6), B(12), methionine, total energy, and confounders. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted at Kingston General Hospital of 80 incident primary prostate cancer cases and 334 urology clinic controls, all with normal age-specific PSA levels (to exclude latent prostate cancers). Participants completed a questionnaire on folate and alcohol intakes and potential confounders prior to knowledge of diagnosis, eliminating recall bias, and blood was drawn for MTHFR genotyping. Joint effects of exposures were assessed using unconditional logistic regression and significance of multiplicative and additive interactions using general linear models. RESULTS: Folate, vitamins B(2), B(6), B(12), methionine, and the CT and TT genotypes were not associated with prostate cancer risk. The highest tertile of lifetime alcohol consumption was associated with increased risk (OR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.12-3.86). Consumption of >5 alcoholic drinks per week was associated with increased prostate cancer risk among men with low folate intake (OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.01-5.57), and higher risk among those with the CC MTHFR genotype (OR = 4.43; 95% CI: 1.15-17.05). Increased risk was also apparent for average weekly alcohol consumption when accounting for the multiplicative interaction between folate intake and MTHFR C677T genotype (OR = 3.22; 95% CI: 1.36-7.59). CONCLUSION: Alcohol consumption is associated with increased prostate cancer risk, and this association is stronger among men with low folate intake, with the CC MTHFR genotype, and when accounting for the joint effect of folate intake and MTHFR C677T genotype.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".