Effects of dietary folate on the development and progression of mammary tumors in rats †
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiologic studies have suggested that dietary intake and blood levels of folate may be inversely related to the risk of breast cancer. However, epidemiologic evidence has not been consistent nor has it provided unequivocal support for this purported inverse relationship. Recent evidence has also raised a concern that folate supplementation may promote carcinogenesis if provided after neoplastic foci are established in the target organ. This study investigated the effect of dietary folate deficiency and supplementation on the development and progression of mammary tumors in the N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (MNU) rat model. Weanling, female Sprague-Dawley rats were fed diets containing 0, 2 (control) or 8 mg folic acid/kg diet during the initiation or the promotion phase of MNU-induced mammary tumorigenesis. At necropsy, all macroscopic mammary tumors were identified and histologically confirmed. Dietary folate deficiency and supplementation provided during the initiation phase did not significantly modulate the development of mammary tumors. In contrast, dietary folate deficiency provided during the promotion phase significantly inhibited the rate of appearance, incidence, mean volume and weight of adenocarcinomas compared with the control and supplemental diets. Folate supplementation provided during the promotion phase did not significantly modulate mammary tumorigenesis compared with the control group. These data indicate that moderate folate deficiency inhibits, whereas dietary folate supplementation at four times the basal dietary requirement does not promote, the progression of MNU-induced mammary neoplastic foci in this rat model. However, the limitations associated with the route and dose of MNU administration preclude a definitive conclusion concerning the effect of folate status on the initiation of MNU-induced mammary tumorigenesis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".