Sweet-beverage consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The consumption of sweet beverages has been associated with greater risk of type 2 diabetes and obesity, which may be involved in the development of pancreatic cancer. Therefore, it has been hypothesized that sweet beverages may increase pancreatic cancer risk as well. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between sweet-beverage consumption (including total, sugar-sweetened, and artificially sweetened soft drink and juice and nectar consumption) and pancreatic cancer risk. DESIGN: The study was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. A total of 477,199 participants (70.2% women) with a mean age of 51 y at baseline were included, and 865 exocrine pancreatic cancers were diagnosed after a median follow-up of 11.60 y (IQR: 10.10-12.60 y). Sweet-beverage consumption was assessed with the use of validated dietary questionnaires at baseline. HRs and 95% CIs were obtained with the use of multivariable Cox regression models that were stratified by age, sex, and center and adjusted for educational level, physical activity, smoking status, and alcohol consumption. Associations with total soft-drink consumption were adjusted for juice and nectar consumption and vice versa. RESULTS: Total soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.07), sugar-sweetened soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.08), and artificially sweetened soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.10) were not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Juice and nectar consumption was inversely associated with pancreatic cancer risk (HR per 100 g/d: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.99); this association remained statistically significant after adjustment for body size, type 2 diabetes, and energy intake. CONCLUSIONS: Soft-drink consumption does not seem to be associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Juice and nectar consumption might be associated with a modest decreased pancreatic cancer risk. Additional studies with specific information on juice and nectar subtypes are warranted to clarify these results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".