Meta‐Analysis of Saturated Fatty Acid Intake and Breast Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The associations between saturated fatty acid (SFA) consumption and risk of breast cancer (BC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted this meta‐analysis to determine the quantitative relations between dietary SFA intake and incidence of BC. Methods Literatures published up to April 2015 were systematically screened through Pubmed and Web of Science. Relevant publication quality was evaluated by conducting the NOS (Newcastle‐Ottawa scale). We used fixed effects models or random effect models to calculate the summary RRs (relative risks) and ORs (odds ratios), and conducted sensitivity analyses and evaluated the publication bias. Results We identified a total of 52 studies (24 cohort studies and 28 case‐control studies), with over 50000 females diagnosed with BC. The associations between dietary SFA intake and risk of BC were 1.18 for case‐control studies (high vs low intake, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03–1.34) and 1.04 for cohort studies (95% CI = 0.97–1.11). When restricted analyses to population‐based studies, positive associations were observed for both cohort (RR (95% CI) = 1.11 (1.01–1.21) and case‐control studies (OR (95% CI) = 1.26 (1.03–1.53)). Additionally, for case‐control studies, significant positive associations between higher SFA intake and BC risk were observed for Asian (OR (95% CI) = 1.17 (1.02–1.34) and Caucasian (OR (95% CI) = 1.19 (1.00–1.41)), as well as for postmenopausal women (OR= 1.33, 95% CI: 1.02–1.73). In contrast, higher dietary SFA intake was not associated with risk of BC among premenopausal women, in cohort studies or hospital‐based studies. Conclusion A positive association between higher dietary SFA intake and postmenopausal BC risk was observed in case‐control but not in cohort studies. More studies are warranted to confirm these findings. Support or Funding Information the National Natural Science Foundation (No. 81001244 and No. 81573144)
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 | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".