MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913129317 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023625

Dairy product consumption and development of cancer: an overview of reviews

2019· review· en· W2913129317 on OpenAlexaff
Maya M. Jeyaraman, Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Laurel Grant, Farnaz Farshidfar, Leslie Copstein, Justin Lys, Tania Gottschalk, Danielle Desautels, Piotr Czaykowski, Marshall Pitz, Ryan Zarychanski

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyUniversity of ManitobaGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConsumption (sociology)Product (mathematics)Public healthEnvironmental healthPathologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive systematic overview of current evidence from pooled analyses/meta-analyses and systematic reviews (PMASRs) pertaining to dairy consumption and incident cancer and/or all-cause or cancer-specific mortality. DESIGN: Overview of reviews. SETTING: Community setting. PARTICIPANTS: The unit of analysis is PMASRs. A total of 42 PMASRs was included in this overview of reviews. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: Any dairy product consumption (eg, milk, yogurt, etc). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcome measure is development of any type of cancer. Secondary outcome measures are all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: From 9693 citations identified, we included 42 PMASRs (52 study reports) published between 1991 and 2017. Thirty-one (74%) of these was pooled analyses/meta analyses, and only 11 (26%) were systematic reviews and meta-analyses. There was a wide variability in the type of study designs included within the other PMASRs, thus contributing to variable and, in instances, divergent estimates of cancer risk for several cancer subtypes. For example, only one systematic review and meta-analysis exclusively included prospective study designs. Most PMASRs were of low to moderate quality based on the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores. The median AMSTAR score was 5 (IQR 2-7). Our overview identified conflicting evidence from PMASRs on association between dairy consumption and incident cancers or mortality. Heterogeneity in summary estimates reflected the inclusion of variable study designs and overall low methodological quality of individual PMASRs. CONCLUSIONS: The association between dairy consumption and cancer risk has been explored in PMASRs with a variety of study designs and of low to moderate quality. To fully characterise valid associations between dairy consumption and risk of cancer and/or mortality rigorously conducted, PMASRs including only high-quality prospective study designs are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017078463.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0230.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.613
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.048 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207