Vitamin C Intake and Risk of Prostate Cancer: The Montreal PROtEuS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vitamin C is a reducing agent and free radical scavenger, acting as antioxidant in plasma membranes and within cells. Based on these properties, a role for vitamin C in cancer incidence has been suspected. There are as yet few large population-based studies focusing on prostate cancer, with the preponderant evidence leaning towards the absence of an association. Nevertheless, many previous studies overlooked prostate cancer aggressiveness, as well as screening and detection issues, which could bias potential associations. Methods: The Prostate Cancer and Environment Study (PROtEuS) is a population-based case-control study conducted in Montreal, Canada. In-person interviews, conducted with 1,916 histologically-confirmed prostate cancer cases and 1,985 population controls, elicited information on a wide range of socio-demographic, lifestyle, and medical factors, including PSA screening. Usual frequency of consumption of 63 food items two years prior to diagnosis/interview was collected, along with use of dietary supplements. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between vitamin C intake and prostate cancer were estimated using logistic or polytomous regression, adjusting for potential confounders. Results: We observed no association between dietary intakes of vitamin C (OR for upper vs. lower tertile: 0.95, 95%CI 0.77, 1.18), estimated using the residual method to account for energy intake, or between regular use of vitamin C supplements and/or multivitamins (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.76-1.05), and overall prostate cancer. Analyses considering disease aggressiveness, or restricted to subjects recently screened with PSA, thereby limiting the potential for undiagnosed cancers in non-cases, generated results consistent with those from the main analyses. Conclusion: Our findings document the absence of an association between recent dietary vitamin C intake, or supplementation, and prostate cancer incidence overall or prostate cancer grade at diagnosis. Based on this, and other available evidence, vitamin C intake does not seem to hold promises with regard to prostate cancer prevention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".