Coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer:A systematic review and Meta-analysis of prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:To assess the association between coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer.METHODS:We searched references from CBM,CNKI,Wangfang data,PubMed,EMBASE and the Cochrane Library before October 2012 to select articles on the association between coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer which met initial criteria.Two evaluators independently reviewed and selected articles based on predetermined selection criteria and assess articles with Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale,NOS.Stata 12.0was used to conduct meta-analysis.Q test and I2were used to have heterogeneity test.We set coffee drinking 4cups/day as a cut-point and combined relative risk or hazard ratio and corresponding 95%confidence intervals for coffee drinking.We also performed subgroup analyses by geographic region.Moreover,we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis on the association between coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer.RESULTS:A total of 10cohort studies were included in the final analyses,involved 512 386participants and 4 484cases of endometrial cancer.No significant heterogeneity was found between studies.Compared with the non/lowest coffee consumption,coffee drinking≥4cups/day or4cups/day was associated with reduction of endometrial cancer risk.The summary RR of endometrial cancer was 0.74(95%CI:0.67-0.83)for≥4cups/day of coffee consumption and 0.87(95%CI:0.81-0.93)for4cups/day of coffee consumption.Subgroup analyses were consistent with the overall analyses.Dose-response analysis indicated that a dose-response relationship was present between coffee drinking and endometrial cancer risk(Pnon-linearity=0.720 7)and increment 2cups/day of coffee consumption was associated with reduced 15%endometrial cancer risk(RR=0.85,95%CI:0.75-0.98).CONCLUSION:Our meta-analysis suggests that coffee consumption is associated with reduced endometrial cancer risk.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".