MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6959131961 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7050773

Association of saturated fatty acids with cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· other· en· W6959131961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerColorectal cancerMeta-analysisConfidence intervalSubgroup analysisCohort studyCorrelationCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective Extensive research has explored the link between saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and cardiovascular diseases, alongside other biological dysfunctions. Yet, their association with cancer risk remains a topic of debate among scholars. The present study aimed to elucidate this association through a robust meta-analysis. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched systematically to identify relevant studies published until December 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used as the primary metric for evaluating the quality of the included studies. Further, fixed- or random-effects models were adopted to determine the ORs and the associated confidence intervals using the Stata15.1 software. The subsequent subgroup analysis revealed the source of detection and the cancer types, accompanied by sensitivity analyses and publication bias evaluations. Results The meta-analysis incorporated 55 studies, comprising 38 case-control studies and 17 cohort studies. It revealed a significant positive correlation between elevated levels of total SFAs and the cancer risk (OR of 1.294; 95% CI: 1.182–1.416; P-value less than 0.001). Moreover, elevated levels of C14:0, C16:0, and C18:0 were implicated in the augmentation of the risk of cancer. However, no statistically significant correlation of the risk of cancer was observed with the elevated levels of C4:0, C6:0, C8:0, C10:0, C12:0, C15:0, C17:0, C20:0, C22:0, and C24:0. Subgroup analysis showed a significant relationship between excessive dietary SFA intake, elevated blood SFA levels, and heightened cancer risk. Increased total SFA levels correlated with higher risks of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers, but not with lung, pancreatic, ovarian, or stomach cancers. Conclusion High total SFA levels were correlated with an increased cancer risk, particularly affecting breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. Higher levels of specific SFA subtypes (C14:0, C16:0, and C18:0) are also linked to an increased cancer risk. The findings of the present study would assist in providing dietary recommendations for cancer prevention, thereby contributing to the development of potential strategies for clinical trials in which diet-related interventions would be used in combination with immunotherapy to alter the levels of SFAs in patients and thereby improve the outcomes in cancer patients. Nonetheless, further high-quality studies are warranted to confirm these associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.044
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals→French-language works237,207→