Assessment of moderate coffee consumption and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer: a Mendelian randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coffee consumption has been shown to be associated with various health outcomes in observational studies. However, evidence for its association with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is inconsistent and it is unclear whether these associations are causal. Methods: We used single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with (i) coffee and (ii) caffeine consumption to perform Mendelian randomization (MR) on EOC risk. We conducted a two-sample MR using genetic data on 44 062 individuals of European ancestry from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC), and combined instrumental variable estimates using a Wald-type ratio estimator. Results: For all EOC cases, the causal odds ratio (COR) for genetically predicted consumption of one additional cup of coffee per day was 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 1.06]. The COR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.10) for high-grade serous EOC. The COR for genetically predicted consumption of an additional 80 mg caffeine was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.11) for all EOC cases and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.10) for high-grade serous cases. Conclusions: We found no evidence indicative of a strong association between EOC risk and genetically predicted coffee or caffeine levels. However, our estimates were not statistically inconsistent with earlier observational studies and we were unable to rule out small protective associations.
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 | 0.029 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".