MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391353402 · doi:10.1186/s12944-024-02025-z

Association of saturated fatty acids with cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4391353402 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLipids in Health and Disease · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersXinjiang Production and Construction CorpsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMeta-analysisClinical nutritionMedicineCochrane LibraryPublication biasInternal medicineSubgroup analysisCancerClinical chemistryLipidologyConfidence intervalOncologyBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Extensive research has explored the link between saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and cardiovascular diseases, alongside other biological dysfunctions. Yet, their association with cancer risk remains a topic of debate among scholars. The present study aimed to elucidate this association through a robust meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched systematically to identify relevant studies published until December 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used as the primary metric for evaluating the quality of the included studies. Further, fixed- or random-effects models were adopted to determine the ORs and the associated confidence intervals using the Stata15.1 software. The subsequent subgroup analysis revealed the source of detection and the cancer types, accompanied by sensitivity analyses and publication bias evaluations. RESULTS: The meta-analysis incorporated 55 studies, comprising 38 case-control studies and 17 cohort studies. It revealed a significant positive correlation between elevated levels of total SFAs and the cancer risk (OR of 1.294; 95% CI: 1.182-1.416; P-value less than 0.001). Moreover, elevated levels of C14:0, C16:0, and C18:0 were implicated in the augmentation of the risk of cancer. However, no statistically significant correlation of the risk of cancer was observed with the elevated levels of C4:0, C6:0, C8:0, C10:0, C12:0, C15:0, C17:0, C20:0, C22:0, and C24:0. Subgroup analysis showed a significant relationship between excessive dietary SFA intake, elevated blood SFA levels, and heightened cancer risk. Increased total SFA levels correlated with higher risks of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers, but not with lung, pancreatic, ovarian, or stomach cancers. CONCLUSION: High total SFA levels were correlated with an increased cancer risk, particularly affecting breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. Higher levels of specific SFA subtypes (C14:0, C16:0, and C18:0) are also linked to an increased cancer risk. The findings of the present study would assist in providing dietary recommendations for cancer prevention, thereby contributing to the development of potential strategies for clinical trials in which diet-related interventions would be used in combination with immunotherapy to alter the levels of SFAs in patients and thereby improve the outcomes in cancer patients. Nonetheless, further high-quality studies are warranted to confirm these associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.342 · 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