Dietary Patterns and Risk of Incident Gastric Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have assessed the relation between dietary patterns and gastric adenocarcinoma risk, yet this approach has advantages over single-nutrient analysis, including the ability to reflect eating patterns in populations and ease of implementing dietary recommendations. The authors evaluated associations between dietary patterns, a food index score, and incident gastric cancer risk in a Canadian study of 1,169 cases and 2,332 controls (1995-1997). Dietary patterns were assessed via factor analysis applied to a food frequency questionnaire. A food index score was derived based on risk factors for gastric cancer. A multivariable-adjusted prudent dietary pattern was associated with decreased risk of gastric cancer in women (odds ratio (OR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37, 0.92); a Western dietary pattern was associated with increased risk in women (OR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.20, 2.89) and men (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02). The food index score was associated with decreased risk among women (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.59) and men (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.88). Dietary patterns especially characterized by Western features (soft drinks, processed meats, refined grains, and sugars) were associated with increased risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, whereas dietary patterns characterized by increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, and fish were associated with lessened 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".