The Association between Circulating Carotenoids and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carotenoids appear to have anticancer effects. Prospective evidence for the relation between serum carotenoids and breast cancer is controversial. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the link between circulating carotenoids and the risk of breast cancer. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to 30 November, 2022. Prospective studies on adults aged ≥18 y that have reported risk estimates for the association between circulating carotenoids and breast cancer risk were considered. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used for combining studies' risk estimates. Dose-response relations were explored through a 1-stage random-effects model. Fifteen publications (17 nested case-control studies and 1 cohort study) with 20,188 participants and 7608 cases were included. We observed an inverse association between the highest level of circulating total carotenoids (relative risk [RR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 0.93; n = 8), α-carotene (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.87; n = 13), β-carotene (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.98; n = 15), β-cryptoxanthin (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.96; n = 11), lycopene (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.98; n = 13), and lutein (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.93; n = 6) and the risk of breast cancer compared with the lowest level. Additionally, each 10 μg/dL of total carotenoids, α-carotene, β-carotene, and β-cryptoxanthin was associated with 2%, 22%, 4%, and 10% lower risk of breast cancer, respectively. This relationship was stronger at lower levels of total carotenoids and β-cryptoxanthin. The certainty of evidence was rated from very low to low. Most studies were performed among Western nations, which should be acknowledged for extrapolation of findings. Total circulating carotenoids, α-carotene, β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, lycopene, and lutein seem to be related to a decreased risk of breast cancer. Our findings could have practical importance for public health. This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42023434983.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".