Postdiagnosis Isoflavone and Lignan Intake in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients: Cross-Sectional Survey Shows Considerable Intake from Previously Unassessed High-Lignan Foods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isoflavones and lignans (phytoestrogens) are dietary components with potential anticarcinogenic effects. Although the intake of isoflavones and lignans may affect breast cancer treatment and prognosis—and associations may differ by menopausal status—postdiagnosis intake data are limited. We aimed to describe postdiagnosis isoflavone and lignan intake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, examine differences by menopausal status and phytoestrogen type, and inform the assessment of diet and survival in future prognostic studies. Our cross-sectional study included 278 women aged 25–74 y, diagnosed with pathologically confirmed breast cancer in April–May 2010 and identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry. Intake in the previous 2 mo was assessed using questionnaires listing 17 soy and 3 high-lignan foods (flaxseed, flaxseed bread, sesame seeds), completed 71 d after breast cancer diagnosis, on average. Food consumption by menopausal status was examined. Geometric mean and median phytoestrogen intakes were estimated among all patients and in consumers only; differences by menopausal status and phytoestrogen type were assessed. Among all patients, foods were similarly consumed by menopausal status and isoflavone intakes were low (median: 56 µg/d). Consumers (n = 219) had higher intakes (median isoflavones: 1808 µg/d); 7% of isoflavone and 21% of lignan consumers had intakes ≥10 mg/d. Intakes were higher in premenopausal than in postmenopausal consumers, particularly for lignans, but were not significantly different (median lignans: 4375 compared with 1863 µg/d; P = 0.07). Lignans were significantly higher than isoflavones among most consumers (postmenopausal means: 746 compared with 100 µg/d; P < 0.0001). Postdiagnosis lignan intakes from 3 high-content foods may be considerable among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, yet they have been unassessed in previous prognostic studies. The inclusion of these foods in dietary assessment methods may improve future intake estimates and the distributions on which breast cancer survival analyses are based.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".