Association between folate intake and risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of published studies about the relationships between folate intake and risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remained inconsistent. Hence, a comprehensive and dose-response meta-analysis was performed to clarify the association between folate intake and HNSCC risk.The electric searches of Pubmed, Medline, and EMBASE databases were performed to identify the studies examining the relationship between folate intake and HNSCC risk on April 5, 2017. According to the inclusion criteria, finally 9 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the strength of associations. Dose-response analysis was conducted to quantitate the relationship between dietary folate intake and HNSCC risk.The pooled OR for assessing the risk of HNSCC and folate intake in the highest level versus lowest level was 0.505 (95% CI 0.387-0.623). The linearity model of dose-response analysis indicated that with increased 100 μg/d folate intake, the risk of HNSCC decreased 4.3% degree (OR 0.957, 95% CI 0.935-0.980).These results indicate that folate is a protective nutrient against HNSCC carcinogenesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".