MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156271937 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002280

Case–control and prospective studies of dietary α-linolenic acid intake and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis

2013· article· en· W2156271937 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda J. Carleton, John L. Sievenpiper, Russell J. de Souza, Gail McKeown‐Eyssen, David J.A. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersAlpro FoundationPeanut InstituteSaskatchewan Pulse GrowersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAdvanced Foods and Materials NetworkKellogg'sAlmond Board of CaliforniaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCalifornia Strawberry CommissionAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProspective cohort studyMeta-analysisNested case-control studyRelative riskCohort studyInternal medicineOncologyEuropean Prospective Investigation into Cancer and NutritionCase-control studyEpidemiologyCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: α-Linolenic acid (ALA) is considered to be a cardioprotective nutrient; however, some epidemiological studies have suggested that dietary ALA intake increases the risk of prostate cancer. The main objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and prospective studies investigating the association between dietary ALA intake and prostate cancer risk. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant prospective and case-control studies. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included all prospective cohort, case-control, nested case-cohort and nested case-control studies that investigated the effect of dietary ALA intake on the incidence (or diagnosis) of prostate cancer and provided relative risk (RR), HR or OR estimates. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method with a random effects model from studies that compared the highest ALA quantile with the lowest ALA quantile. Risk estimates were expressed as RR with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by χ(2) and quantified by I(2). RESULTS: Data from five prospective and seven case-control studies were pooled. The overall RR estimate showed ALA intake to be positively but non-significantly associated with prostate cancer risk (1.08 (0.90 to 1.29), p=0.40; I(2)=85%), but the interpretation was complicated by evidence of heterogeneity not explained by study design. A weak, non-significant protective effect of ALA intake on prostate cancer risk in the prospective studies became significant (0.91 (0.83 to 0.99), p=0.02) without evidence of heterogeneity (I(2)=8%, p=0.35) on removal of one study during sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis failed to confirm an association between dietary ALA intake and prostate cancer risk. Larger and longer observational and interventional studies are needed to define the role of ALA and prostate 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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.070
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207