Post‐diagnostic multivitamin supplement use and colorectal cancer survival: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Use of multivitamin supplements has been associated with lower incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, its influence on CRC survival remains unknown. Methods Among 2424 patients with stage I–III CRC who provided detailed information about multivitamin supplements in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐up Study, the authors calculated multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) of multivitamin supplements for all‐cause and CRC‐specific mortality according to post‐diagnostic use and dose of multivitamin supplements. Results During a median follow‐up of 11 years, the authors documented 1512 deaths, among which 343 were of CRC. Compared to non‐users, post‐diagnostic users of multivitamin supplements at a dose of 3–5 tablets/week had lower CRC‐specific mortality (HR, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36–0.83, p = .005), and post‐diagnostic users at doses of 3–5 and 6–9 tablets/week had lower all‐cause mortality (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.99, p = .04; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70–0.88), p < .001). The dose–response analysis showed a curvilinear relationship for both CRC‐specific (pnonlinearity < .001) and all‐cause mortality (pnonlinearity = .004), with the maximum risk reduction observed at 3–5 tablets/week and no further reduction at higher doses. Compared to non‐users in both pre‐ and post‐diagnosis periods, new post‐diagnostic users at dose of <10 tablets/week had a lower all‐cause mortality (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71–0.94, p = .005), whereas new users at a dose of ≥10 tablets/week (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07–2.33) and discontinued users (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14–1.59) had a higher risk of mortality. Conclusions Use of multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose after a diagnosis of nonmetastatic CRC is associated with lower CRC‐specific and overall mortality, whereas a high dose (≥10 tablets/week) use is associated with higher CRC‐specific mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".