MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148466271 · doi:10.14740/jnr277w

Nutrient Patterns and Risk of Multiple Sclerosis: A Case-Control Study

2014· article· en· W3148466271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akhoondan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNiacinMicronutrientNutrientRisk factorPolyunsaturated fatty acidInternal medicineVitamin CVitamin D and neurologyVitamin B12RiboflavinVitaminLogistic regressionVitamin EMultiple sclerosisFatty acidGastroenterologyFood scienceAntioxidantBiochemistryBiologyImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Iran is increasing. Although diet is an important modifiable risk factor for MS, the cumulative impact of micronutrients on MS is not yet fully understood . The objective was t o evaluate the association between nutrient pattern and the risk of MS . Methods: A validated food frequency questionnaire was used in the hospital-based case-control study. Sixty-eight patients with newly diagnosed MS and 140 controls were included. Results: Cases and controls were selected from the Sinai Hospital in Tehran. Conducting principal component on 20 nutrients, four main nutrient patterns were revealed. Factor 1 included thiamin, selenium, niacin, copper and magnesium. Factor 2 was characterized by high riboflavin, calcium, vitamin D, zinc, linolenic acid and caffeine. Factor 3 was high in polyunsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, alpha tocopherol, vitamin E and saturated fatty acids, and factor 4 was characterized by high loadings of vitamin C, β carotene and vitamin A. Using unconditional logistic regression, factors 2 and 4 were inversely associated to MS risk (OR = 0.25 (0.11 - 0.58) and OR = 0.43(0.21 - 0.87) respectively ). Factors 1 and 3 showed no significant association with MS. Conclusion: Findings suggested that nutrient patterns may be important in etiopathogenesis of MS and may offer new approaches to prevent MS. J Neurol Res. 2014;4(2-3):72-80 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jnr277w

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207