4.7 Article

The mediating role of combined lifestyle factors on the relationship between education and gastric cancer in the Stomach cancer Pooling (StoP) Project

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 127, 期 5, 页码 855-862

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01857-9

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) [21378]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the mediating role of lifestyle factors in the relationship between education and gastric cancer. The results showed that the relationship between education and gastric cancer is mediated by lifestyle factors, and this mediation effect is limited to men.
Background The causal pathway between high education and reduced risk of gastric cancer (GC) has not been explained. The study aimed at evaluating the mediating role of lifestyle factors on the relationship between education and GC Methods Ten studies with complete data on education and five lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol drinking, fruit and vegetable intake, processed meat intake and salt consumption) were selected from a consortium of studies on GC including 4349 GC cases and 8441 controls. We created an a priori score based on the five lifestyle factors, and we carried out a counterfactual-based mediation analysis to decompose the total effect of education on GC into natural direct effect and natural indirect effect mediated by the combined lifestyle factors. Effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with a low level of education as the reference category. Results The natural direct and indirect effects of high versus low education were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.62-0.77) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97), respectively, corresponding to a mediated percentage of 10.1% (95% CI: 7.1-15.4%). The mediation effect was limited to men. Conclusions The mediation effect of the combined lifestyle factors on the relationship between education and GC is modest. Other potential pathways explaining that relationship warrants further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据