Soy Foods and the Risk of Fracture: A Systematic Review of Prospective Cohort Studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of our study was to systematically review all available prospective cohort studies which investigated the association of soy food intake and incident fracture risk. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases for relevant studies up to June 2021. SYNTHESIS: Of 695 records, a total of 5 cohort studies were included in the current systematic review. Two studies that were performed in China evaluated hip fracture while 2 studies that were done in Singapore evaluated any kind of fractures. The other study was conducted in Japan and evaluated osteoporosis fractures. All studies used a face-to-face interview to assess the dietary intake of soy foods. All 5 cohort studies were determined to be of high quality. One study considered soy food as a part of a vegetables-fruit-soy food dietary pattern. Others reported the association of dietary intake of soy foods with the risk of fractures. CONCLUSION: The evidence from prospective cohort studies was suggestive for a protective role of soy foods, alone or within a dietary pattern, in the risk of incident fracture among Asian women, particularly for those in early menopause and those who used fermented soy products. But for men, the association was not significant. However, more cohort studies, including non-Asian populations, are required to confirm this association fully.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it