this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
94 points (88.5% liked)

Public Health

1038 readers
67 users here now

For issues concerning:


๐Ÿฉบ This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.



Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)


Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] jet@hackertalks.com 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (27 children)

The actual study Longitudinal associations between vegetarian dietary habits and site-specific cancers in the Adventist Health Study-2 North American cohort

abstractBackground Associations between vegetarian diets and risk of common cancers are somewhat understood, but such data on medium-frequency cancers are scarce and often imprecise.

Objectives The objectives of this study was to describe multivariable-adjusted associations between different types of vegetarian diets (compared with nonvegetarians) and risk of cancers at different bodily sites.

Methods The Adventist Health Study is a cohort of 95,863 North American Seventh-day Adventists established between 2002 and 2007. These analyses used 79,468 participants initially free of cancer. Baseline dietary data were obtained using a food frequency questionnaire and incident cancers by matching with state and Canadian provincial cancer registries. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using proportional hazard regression. Small amounts of missing data were filled using multiple imputations.

Results Overall cancers, all vegetarians combined compared with nonvegetarians, had HR: 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83,0.93; P < 0.001, and for medium frequency cancers, HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.89; P < 0.001. Of specific cancers, colorectal (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.95; P = 0.011), stomach (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.93; P = 0.025), and lymphoproliferative (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60,0.93; P = 0.010) cancers, were significantly less frequent among vegetarians. A joint test that HR = 1.0 for all vegetarian subtypes compared with nonvegetarians was rejected for cancers of the breast (P = 0.012), lymphoma (P = 0.031), all lymphoproliferative cancers (P = 0.004), prostate cancer (P = 0.030), colorectal cancers (P = 0.023), medium frequency cancers (P < 0.001), and for all cancers combined (P < 0.001).

Conclusions These data indicate a lower risk in vegetarians for all cancers combined, as well as for medium-frequency cancers as a group. Specific cancers with evidence of lower risk are breast, colorectal, prostate, stomach, and lymphoproliferative subtypes. Risk at some other sites may also differ in vegetarians, but statistical power was limited.

I've ranted about my Standards for Nutritional Evidence before, but here are the major issues

  • Observational
  • Weak Hazard Ratios
  • Absolute risk not calculated or published
  • Compares only against the Standard American Diet [SAD]
  • Cannot inform on cause and effect
  • proportional hazard regression is just a fancy way of saying they tried to model out confounders by guessing
  • Food Frequency Questionnaire administered asking about 1 year of food administered once, in a study that has been running since 2002 - 23 years! 21 years since a FFQ

TLDR: It's a interesting study, it is hypothesis generating and should be used for further science or to design a interventional study, it should not be used to inform on personal health choices, it simply does not have the power or the rigor

[โ€“] echolalia@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago (13 children)

Don't you think calling a proportional hazards model "guessing" is doing a disservice to Lemmy posters here? Not everyone has a background in statistics, and honestly quite a few people here struggle with highschool math. It's not much different than linear regression. Its fancy linear regression, not fancy guessing.

Does their model not fit or something?

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)