| Title |
The inflammatory potential of diet and ovarian cancer risk: results from two prospective cohort studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of Cancer, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/bjc.2017.246 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fred K Tabung, Tianyi Huang, Edward L Giovannucci, Stephanie A Smith-Warner, Shelley S Tworoger, Elizabeth M Poole |
| Abstract |
We used a food-based empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) score to investigate whether diets with higher inflammatory potential are associated with increased ovarian cancer risk. We followed 186 314 women in the Nurses' Health Study and Nurses' Health Study-II, from 1984 to 2013, to examine associations between EDIP scores and ovarian cancer risk, using Cox regression analyses. During 3 454 514 person-years of follow-up, 989 ovarian cancer cases were identified. In pooled multivariable-adjusted analyses, higher EDIP scores (more pro-inflammatory diets) were not significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk (HRquintile5vs1 0.99; 95% CI: 0.80-1.22; P-trend=0.97). Similarly, we found no evidence of heterogeneity by histologic subtype (P-heterogeneity=0.52) or by tumour aggressiveness (P-heterogeneity=0.63). In contrast with two previous case-control studies that found a positive association between a literature-derived nutrient-based dietary inflammatory index and ovarian cancer risk, our prospective analyses using a food-based score observed no evidence of an association.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 3 August 2017; doi:10.1038/bjc.2017.246 www.bjcancer.com. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,486,811
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#648
of 10,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,769
of 317,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#16
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.