MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400517824 · doi:10.1093/gastro/goae058

Colorectal cancer and inulin supplementation: the good, the bad, and the unhelpful

2023· article· en· W4400517824 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology report · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInulinPrebioticMedicineColorectal cancerContext (archaeology)ButyratePopulationFood scienceCancerInternal medicineFermentationEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prebiotic inulin has been vaunted for its potential to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Inulin fermentation resulting in the production of short-chain fatty acids, primarily butyrate, has been reported to be associated with properties that are beneficial for gut health and has led to an increased consumption of inulin in the Western population through processed food and over-the-counter dietary supplements. However, in clinical trials, there is limited evidence of the efficacy of inulin in preventing colorectal cancer. Moreover, recent data suggest that improper inulin consumption may even be harmful for gastro-intestinal health under certain circumstances. The main objective of this review is to provide insight into the beneficial and potentially detrimental effects of inulin supplementation in the context of colorectal cancer prevention and enhancement of treatment efficacy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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