Association between dietary fiber and endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore a potential relationship between dietary fiber consumption and risk of endometrial cancer (EC), eligible studies published up to 30 June 2018 were retrieved via computer searches and manual review of references. Random-effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk (RR) estimates based on contrasting high- and low-fiber intake values. Sensitivity analysis was conducted, and heterogeneity among study results was explored through stratified analyses by study design, geographic region, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score, impact factor, and adjustment for several confounders (age, body mass index, smoking, energy intake, and education). We extracted data from 16 studies (involving 6,563 cases). There was a significant association between dietary fiber intake and EC (RR = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78, 0.93). In stratified analysis, this trend was more pronounced in the case-control studies, and in studies conducted in the Americas and Asia. The relationship was further confirmed after adjusting for education level (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.88) and age (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.83), and NOS scores of 6 (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.95) and 7 (RR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.88). In conclusion, our meta-analysis revealed an inverse association between dietary fiber consumption and EC risk. Further efforts should be made to confirm these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".