Fiber consumption and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".