Multivitamin, calcium and folic acid supplements and the risk of colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with a DNA mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation have a substantially elevated risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) but the modifiers of this risk are not well established. We investigated the association between dietary supplement intake and CRC risk for carriers. METHODS: This study included 1966 (56% female) carriers of an MMR gene mutation (719 MLH1, 931 MSH2, 211 MSH6 and 105 PMS2) who were recruited from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand into the Colon Cancer Family Registry between 1997 and 2012. Information on lifestyle factors including supplement intake was collected at the time of recruitment. Using Cox proportional hazards regression weighted to correct for ascertainment bias, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between self-reported multivitamin, calcium and folic acid supplement intake and CRC risk. RESULTS: Of 744 carriers with CRC, 18%, 6% and 5% reported intake of multivitamin, calcium and folic acid supplements for at least 1 month, respectively, compared with 27%, 11% and 10% of 1222 carriers without CRC. After adjusting for identified confounding variables, a decreased CRC risk was associated with multivitam inintake for at least 3 years (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32-0.69) and calcium intake for at least 3 years(HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.74), compared with never users. There was no evidence of an association between folic acid supplement intake and CRC risk (P = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Intake of multivitamin and calcium supplements might be associated with a decreased risk of CRC for MMR gene mutation carriers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".