MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988878885 · doi:10.21873/anticanres.13828

Dairy Food Consumption and Mammographic Breast Density: The Role of Fat

2019· article· en· W2988878885 on OpenAlexaff
Elisabeth Canitrot, Caroline Diorio

Bibliographic record

VenueAnticancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuartileMedicineMAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITYFood frequency questionnaireBreast cancerMammographyAnimal scienceLinear regressionFood consumptionEndocrinologyPostmenopausal womenInternal medicineGynecologyCancerConfidence intervalBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the associations between low and high-fat dairy food (DF) intake and breast density (BD). Materials and Methods: A total of 775 premenopausal and 771 postmenopausal women recruited during screening mammography completed a food frequency questionnaire. Adjusted linear regression models were used to assess the associations. Results: As frequency quartiles of high-fat DF consumption increased, the adjusted mean of absolute BD increased from 31.5 to 36.1 cm<sup>2</sup> for all women (p<sub>trend</sub>=0.0034) and from 42.4 to 50.1 cm<sup>2</sup> for premenopausal women (p<sub>trend</sub>=0.0047). Conversely, as frequency quartiles of low-fat DF consumption increased, the adjusted mean of absolute BD decreased from 34.7 to 29.6 cm<sup>2</sup> for all women (p<sub>trend</sub>=0.001) and from 49.7 to 40.7 cm<sup>2</sup> for premenopausal women (p<sub>trend</sub>=0.0012). Conclusion: A higher intake of high-fat and low-fat DF is respectively associated with higher and lower BD, particularly in premenopausal women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnticancer ResearchSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207