A 22-year Prospective Study of Fish,<i>n</i>-3 Fatty Acid Intake, and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fish is the main dietary source of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, which have been suggested to play a protective role in colorectal cancer development in laboratory and animal studies. Human studies have not shown consistent results. We examined the association between intakes of fish and n-3 fatty acids from fish and colorectal cancer risk in men enrolled in the Physicians' Health Study. METHODS: The Physicians' Health Study began as a randomized trial to examine the effect of aspirin and beta-carotene supplementation on cancer and cardiovascular disease. Fish intake was assessed at the 12-month follow-up with an abbreviated food-frequency questionnaire. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate multivariate relative risks for colorectal cancer for the categories of fish intake and quartiles of n-3 fatty acid intake. RESULTS: During 22 years of follow-up, 500 men had a confirmed diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Fish intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk [multivariate relative risk (95% confidence interval) for highest versus lowest category, 0.63 (0.42-0.95); P trend = 0.02] [corrected] The inverse association was observed for both colon and rectal cancers. Our findings for n-3 fatty acids were similar to those for fish; the multivariate relative risk (95% confidence interval) of total colorectal cancer for the highest versus lowest quartile of n-3 fatty acids was 0.74 (0.57-0.95; P trend = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results from this long-term prospective study suggest that intakes of fish and long-chain n-3 fatty acids from fish may decrease the risk for 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".