MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800574345 · doi:10.2147/clep.s163668

The impact of moderate wine consumption on the risk of developing prostate cancer

2018· review· en· W2800574345 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Epidemiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersEuropean Association of Urology
KeywordsWineWhite WineMedicineCochrane LibraryPublication biasMeta-analysisRelative riskLogistic regressionProstate cancerInternal medicineCancerConfidence intervalFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the impact of moderate wine consumption on the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). We focused on the differential effect of moderate consumption of red versus white wine. Design: This study was a meta-analysis that includes data from case–control and cohort studies. Materials and methods: A systematic search of Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane library was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were deemed eligible if they assessed the risk of PCa due to red, white, or any wine using multivariable logistic regression analysis. We performed a formal meta-analysis for the risk of PCa according to moderate wine and wine type consumption (white or red). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane’s Q test and I 2 statistics. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s regression test. Results: A total of 930 abstracts and titles were initially identified. After removal of duplicates, reviews, and conference abstracts, 83 full-text original articles were screened. Seventeen studies (611,169 subjects) were included for final evaluation and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In the case of moderate wine consumption: the pooled risk ratio (RR) for the risk of PCa was 0.98 (95% CI 0.92–1.05, p =0.57) in the multivariable analysis. Moderate white wine consumption increased the risk of PCa with a pooled RR of 1.26 (95% CI 1.10–1.43, p =0.001) in the multivariable analysis. Meanwhile, moderate red wine consumption had a protective role reducing the risk by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78–0.999, p =0.047) in the multivariable analysis that comprised 222,447 subjects. Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, moderate wine consumption did not impact the risk of PCa. Interestingly, regarding the type of wine, moderate consumption of white wine increased the risk of PCa, whereas moderate consumption of red wine had a protective effect. Further analyses are needed to assess the differential molecular effect of white and red wine conferring their impact on PCa risk. Keywords: wine, prostate cancer, alcohol, risk of cancer, meta-analysis

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.433
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it