MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130585997 · doi:10.1001/jama.294.22.2849

Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Colorectal Cancer

2005· article· en· W2130585997 on OpenAlexaff
Yikyung Park, David J. Hunter, Donna Spiegelman, Leif Bergkvist, Franco Berrino, Piet A. van den Brandt, Julie E. Buring, Graham A. Colditz, Jo L. Freudenheim, Charles S. Fuchs, Edward L. Giovannucci, R. Alexandra Goldbohm, Saxon Graham, Lisa Harnack, Anne M. Hartman, David R. Jacobs, Ikuko Kato, Vittorio Krogh, Michael F. Leitzmann, Marjorie L. McCullough, Anthony B. Miller, Pirjo Pietinen, Thomas E. Rohan, Arthur Schatzkin, Walter C. Willett, Alicja Wolk, Anne Zeleniuch‐Jacquotte, Shumin M. Zhang, Stephanie A. Smith‐Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerRelative riskInternal medicineProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelCohort studyPopulationCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Inconsistent findings from observational studies have continued the controversy over the effects of dietary fiber on colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between dietary fiber intake and risk of colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 13 prospective cohort studies included in the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, 725,628 men and women were followed up for 6 to 20 years across studies. Study- and sex-specific relative risks (RRs) were estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model and were subsequently pooled using a random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incident colorectal cancer. RESULTS: During 6 to 20 years of follow-up across studies, 8081 colorectal cancer cases were identified. For comparison of the highest vs lowest study- and sex-specific quintile of dietary fiber intake, a significant inverse association was found in the age-adjusted model (pooled RR = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.92). However, the association was attenuated and no longer statistically significant after adjusting for other risk factors (pooled multivariate RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03). In categorical analyses compared with dietary fiber intake of 10 to <15 g/d, the pooled multivariate RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.05-1.31) for less than 10 g/d (11% of the overall study population); and RR, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.85-1.17) for 30 or more g/d. Fiber intake from cereals, fruits, and vegetables was not associated with risk of colorectal cancer. The pooled multivariate RRs comparing the highest vs lowest study- and sex-specific quintile of dietary fiber intake were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90-1.11) for colon cancer and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01) for rectal cancer (P for common effects by tumor site = .07). CONCLUSIONS: In this large pooled analysis, dietary fiber intake was inversely associated with risk of colorectal cancer in age-adjusted analyses. However, after accounting for other dietary risk factors, high dietary fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations468
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207