MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163950461

Role of nutrition in preventing cancer.

2007· article· en· W2163950461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Béliveau, Denis Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemoprotectiveCancerMedicineCancer incidenceDiet and cancerCancer preventionEnvironmental healthIncidence (geometry)BiotechnologyBiologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence linking dietary habits to the incidence of several types of cancer with special emphasis on the chemoprotective properties of foods that originate from plants. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A large body of epidemiologic, animal, and laboratory literature indicates that as many as 30% of all cancer cases are linked to poor dietary habits. The proportion reaches 70% for cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. MAIN MESSAGE: Studies have consistently linked abundant consumption of plant-based food to a substantial reduction in risk of developing various cancers. Laboratory studies show that this chemopreventive effect is related to the high levels of numerous phytochemicals in this food. These phytochemicals interfere with several cellular processes involved in the progression of cancer and also with inflammatory processes that foster development of cancer. CONCLUSION: Dietary factors play an important role in the high incidence of several types of cancer in Canada. Modification of dietary habits to include daily intake of plant-based food containing anticancer and anti-inflammatory phytochemicals thus represents a promising approach to preventing the development of 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations107
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207