MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408249256 · doi:10.1186/s41043-025-00811-8

The association between dietary acid load and odds of prostate cancer: a case-control study

2025· article· en· W4408249256 on OpenAlexaff
Sanaz Mehranfar, Yahya Jalilpiran‬, Alireza Jafari, Leila Setayesh, Cain C. T. Clark, Shiva Faghih

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Population and Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal function and acid-base balance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineOdds ratioEpidemiologyOddsCase-control studyAssociation (psychology)OncologyEnvironmental healthNutritional epidemiologyInternal medicineDemographyGerontologyGynecologyCancerLogistic regressionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Conflicting results exist regarding the associations between dietary acid load (DAL) and cancer risk. This study aimed to investigate the association between DAL and the odds of prostate cancer (PC) in the Iranian population. METHODS: One hundred and twenty participants (60 controls and 60 newly diagnosed PC patients) engaged in a hospital-based case-control study conducted from April to September 2015. A validated, 160-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to assess usual dietary intakes. DAL was calculated using potential renal acid load (PRAL) and net endogenous acid production (NEAP). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to estimate odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Both PRAL (OR = 5.44; 95% CI = 2.09-14.17) and NEAP (OR = 4.88; 95% CI = 2.22-13.41) were associated with increased odds of PC in the crude model. After adjusting for potential confounders (energy intake, smoking, physical activity, ethnicity, job, education, and medication use), being in the third category of PRAL (OR = 3.42; 95% CI = 1.11-8.65) and NEAP (OR = 3.88; 95% CI = 1.26-9.55) were significantly associated with increased odds of PC. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that dietary acid load may be linked to an increased risk of PC; however, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer durations are necessary to validate these findings.

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)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Population and NutritionSame topicRenal function and acid-base balanceFrench-language works237,207