Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of endometrial cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbohydrates and the dietary glycemic index (GI) influence insulin secretion and insulin-like growth factors, and may exert relevant effects on obesity and diabetes, both of which are important risk factors for endometrial cancer. We studied the association between dietary GI and glycemic load (GL) and endometrial cancer using data from an Italian case-control study. This included 454 women with histologically confirmed endometrial cancer and 908 controls admitted to the same hospitals for acute, non-neoplastic conditions. Multivariate odds ratios were obtained after allowance for major potential confounding factors, including noncarbohydrate energy intake. We updated a meta-analysis on this issue, including a recent US cohort study, which contributed about a quarter of all cases, besides our case-control study. In the case-control study, the odds ratios of endometrial cancer for the highest versus the lowest quintile were 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-1.58] for GI and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.64-1.61) for GL. No heterogeneity was found across the strata of diabetes and other selected covariates. The summary risk estimate of endometrial cancer for the highest versus the lowest GI level, obtained from the meta-analysis, was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.92-1.29). The corresponding risk estimate for GL was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.06-1.34). The case-control study showed no association between dietary GI and GL and the risk of endometrial cancer overall and in the strata of relevant covariates, whereas the meta-analysis supported an increased risk for high GL, but not GI.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it