MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015030266 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00036

Vitamin E and Mortality in Male Smokers of the ATBC Study: Implications for Nutritional Recommendations

2020· article· en· W3015030266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harri Hemilä

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteTerveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos
KeywordsMedicineVitamin EVitaminPhysiologyAscorbic acidbeta-CaroteneDietary Reference IntakeVitamin CRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineAntioxidantNutrientBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI)-monograph (USA and Canada) states that the estimated average requirement (EAR) of vitamin E for men and women of any age is 12 mg/day, which further leads to the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) of 15 mg/day. The EAR value is based on in vitro hemolysis in young males; a surrogate endpoint without any shown validity. The EAR is then extrapolated to older individuals. The validity of the EAR of 12 mg/day is therefore questionable. The current study analyzed the association between dietary vitamin E intake and the effect of 25 mg/day of vitamin E supplement on mortality in male smokers aged 50-69 years in the Alpha-Tocopherol-Beta-Carotene (ATBC) Study. The effect of vitamin E supplement was estimated by Cox regression. Among participants who had dietary vitamin C intake of 90 mg/day and more, vitamin E supplement increased mortality by 19% (p = .006) in those aged 50-62 years, but decreased mortality by 41% (p = .0003) in those aged 66-69 years. No association between vitamin E supplement effect and dietary vitamin E intake was found in these two groups, nor in participants who had dietary vitamin C intake of less than 90 mg/day. This analysis of male smokers challenges the validity of the ‘average requirement’ of 12 mg/day of vitamin E for males aged 51 years and older. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00342992.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative StressFrench-language works237,207