Pre-diagnosis tea and coffee consumption and survival after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer: results from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tea and coffee are the most frequently consumed beverages in the world. Green tea in particular contains compounds with potential anti-cancer effects, but its association with survival after ovarian cancer is uncertain. METHODS: We investigated the associations between tea and coffee consumption before diagnosis and survival using data from 10 studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Data on tea (green, black, herbal), coffee and caffeine intake were available for up to 5724 women. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Compared with women who did not drink any green tea, consumption of one or more cups/day was associated with better overall survival (aHR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-1.00, p-trend = 0.04). A similar association was seen for ovarian cancer-specific survival in five studies with this information (aHR = 0.81, 0.66-0.99, p-trend = 0.045). There was no consistent variation between subgroups defined by clinical or lifestyle characteristics and adjustment for other aspects of lifestyle did not appreciably alter the estimates. We found no evidence of an association between coffee, black or herbal tea, or caffeine intake and survival. CONCLUSION: The observed association with green tea consumption before diagnosis raises the possibility that consumption after diagnosis might improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".