Tea consumption and the risk of biliary tract cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
// Jianping Xiong 1, * , Jianzhen Lin 1, * , Anqiang Wang 1, * , Yaqin Wang 2 , Ying Zheng 3 , Xinting Sang 1 , Yiyao Xu 1 , Xin Lu 1 , Haitao Zhao 1 1 Department of Liver Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China 2 Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China 3 State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Science, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Yiyao Xu, email: xuyiyao@hotmail.com Xin Lu, email: luxinln@163.com Haitao Zhao, email: zhaoht@pumch.cn Keywords: tea, biliary tract cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, bile duct cancer Received: January 09, 2017 Accepted: March 29, 2017 Published: April 08, 2017 ABSTRACT Recent studies have shown that tea consumption is associated with the reduced incidence of some types of cancer, possibly including biliary tract cancer. However, the epidemiological evidences for the association with risk of biliary tract cancer are contradictory. Thus, we performed meta-analysis of published observational studies to assess the association between tea consumption and risk of biliary tract cancer. Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science published before October 2016. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of included studies, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, and Begg’s and Egger’s tests. This meta-analysis includes eight studies comprising 18 independent reports. The incidence of biliary tract cancer reduced about 34% (significantly) for tea intake group in comparison with never intake group (summary odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48–0.85). Additionally, an inverse relationship between tea intake and risk of biliary tract cancer was statistically significant in women (OR = 0.65; 95 % CI = 0.47–0.83), but not in men (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.58–1.13). Dose– response analysis indicated that the risk of biliary tract cancer decreased by 4% with each additional cup of tea one day (relative risk [RR] = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93–0.98, p = 0.001). In summary, tea intake is associated with decreased risk of biliary tract cancer, especially for women.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".