MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014906084 · doi:10.1002/cncr.32816

Fiber consumption and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies

2020· review· en· W3014906084 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

VenueCancer · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)Prospective cohort studyOncologyInternal medicineCancerOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Associations between fiber intake and breast cancer risk have been evaluated in prospective studies, but overall, the evidence is inconsistent. The authors performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies to investigate the relation between intake of total and types of fiber with breast cancer incidence. Methods The MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) databases were searched through July 2019 for prospective studies that reported on the association between fiber consumption and incident breast cancer. The pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated comparing the highest versus the lowest category of total and types of fiber consumption, using a random‐effects meta‐analysis. Results The authors identified 17 cohort studies, 2 nested case‐control studies, and 1 clinical trial study. Total fiber consumption was associated with an 8% lower risk of breast cancer (comparing the highest versus the lowest category, pooled RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88‐0.95 [ I 2 = 12.6%]). Soluble fiber was found to be significantly inversely associated with risk of breast cancer (pooled RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84‐0.96; I 2 = 12.6%]) and insoluble fiber was found to be suggestively inversely associated with risk of breast cancer (pooled RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86‐1.00; I 2 = 33.4%]). Higher total fiber intake was associated with a lower risk of both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancers (pooled RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.67‐0.99; I 2 = 35.2%] and pooled RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.88‐0.95; I 2 = 0.0%], respectively). Furthermore, the authors observed a nonsignificant inverse association between intake of total fiber and risk of both estrogen and progesterone receptor–positive and estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative breast cancers. Conclusions A random‐effects meta‐analysis of prospective observational studies demonstrated that high total fiber consumption was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. This finding was consistent for soluble fiber as well as for women with premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.316 · 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