Dietary Factors and Risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between dietary pattern and the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been described; however, the exclusive role of dietary factors remains controversial. Hence, we conducted this systematic meta-analysis to clarify the role of some nutrients and antioxidant vitamins in the risk of COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for studies evaluating the associations between COPD outcome measures, symptoms, and mortality, and intake of fruits and vegetables, fiber, fish, n-3 or n-6 fatty acids, and antioxidant vitamins in adults. The random-effect model meta-analyses were used to pool the results. RESULTS: Ten cohort, six case-control, and 20 cross-sectional studies were identified. The pooled relative risks (RRs) of the COPD and confidence intervals (CIs) for the highest intake group compared with the lowest intake group were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.85) for fruit, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.55-0.78) for dietary fiber, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.85) for fish, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.76-0.99) for vitamin C. No association was observed between the risk of COPD and the intake of vegetables, n-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, and β-carotene; however, it was associated with n-6 fatty acids 1.06 (95% CI: 0.87-1.30). CONCLUSION: The results suggested that a higher intake of fruits, probably dietary fiber, and fish reduce the risk of COPD.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".