MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402080551 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuae105

The Clinical Impact of Time-restricted Eating on Cancer: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4402080551 on OpenAlexafffund
Eleah Stringer, Rob W G Cloke, Lindsay Van der Meer, Rachel A. Murphy, Nicol Macpherson, Julian J. Lum

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDietary Effects on Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBC Cancer FoundationMichael Smith Health Research BCTerry Fox Research InstituteLotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLContext (archaeology)Clinical trialMEDLINECancerInternal medicineMeta-analysisPopulationData extractionScopusOncologyPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: In the face of the growing global burden of cancer, there is increasing interest in dietary interventions to mitigate its impacts. Pre-clinical evidence suggests that time-restricted eating (TRE), a type of intermittent fasting, induces metabolic effects and alterations in the gut microbiome that may impede carcinogenesis. Research on TRE in cancer has progressed to human studies, but the evidence has yet to be synthesized. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the clinical and/or metabolomic effects of TRE compared with ad libitum eating or alternative diets in people with cancer. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection (ESCI, CPCI-SSH, CPCI-S), and SCOPUS were searched up to January 4, 2023, using the core concepts of "intermittent fasting" and "cancer." Original study designs, protocols, and clinical trial registries were included. DATA EXTRACTION: After evaluating 13 900 results, 24 entries were included, consisting of 8 full articles, 2 abstracts, 1 published protocol and 13 trial registries. All data were extracted, compared, and critically analyzed. DATA ANALYSIS: There was heterogeneity in the patient population (eg, in tumor sites), TRE regimens (eg, degree of restriction, duration), and clinical end points. A high rate (67-98%) of TRE adherence was observed, alongside improvements in quality of life. Four articles assessed cancer markers and found a reduction in tumor marker carcinoembryonic antigen, reduced rates of recurrence, and a sustained major molecular response, following TRE. Five articles demonstrated modified cancer risk factors, including beneficial effects on body mass index, adiposity, glucoregulation, and inflammation in as short a period as 8 weeks. None of the completed studies assessed the effect of TRE on the microbiome, but analysis of the microbiome is a planned outcome in 2 clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that TRE is feasible and acceptable by people with cancer, may have oncological benefits, and improves quality of life. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration No. CRD42023386885.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.383 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicDietary Effects on HealthFrench-language works237,207