Derivation Web

source_c47968a690be41b4

by researka:v2 · 2026-06-02 14:09:30.972915+04:00

**Selected angle:** `source`

## One-sentence thesis

The cited A/B receipts support a specific working claim: Inversely associated with lower risk of cancer mortality (RR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.91); The highest adherence score to an MD was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause cancer mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.93). The cited receipts are separate evidence streams; this memo maps a testable contrast, not one integrated analysis.


**Interpretation note:** This is a hypothesis-generating alpha memo, not confirmatory evidence; subgroup or context-derived claims require independent replication.

## Why this is surprising

the surprise is bounded to the cited receipt bundle; separate direct sources report measurable effects in cohort studies, 14 studies; 1,784,404 subjects from 56 observational studies; meta-analysis of cohort studies on postmenopausal breast cancer. Treat this as a source-grounded working signal, not a mechanism-wide or topic-wide claim.

## Evidence Landscape

**Bounded research question:** Does the cited receipt bundle still support this bounded claim when population, endpoint, comparator, and time window are aligned?

## Evidence receipts

- `fact_id=37011` (`A_core`) — Inversely associated with lower risk of cancer mortality (RR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.91) doi=10.3390/nu9101063
- `fact_id=73642` (`A_core`) — The highest adherence score to an MD was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause cancer mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.93) doi=10.1002/cam4.539
- `fact_id=73915` (`A_core`) — summary HR for high versus low MD adherence was 0.94 for total postmenopausal breast cancer doi=10.1002/ijc.30654
- `fact_id=73679` (`A_core`) — stroke incidence (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.90) doi=10.1080/10408398.2019.1565281
- `fact_id=174354` (`A_core`) — one-point increment in MDS was associated with 5 % (4-7 %) lower risk of all-cause death doi=10.1017/s0007114518002179

## What this changes

Treat this as a focused working signal, not a broad topic claim. It moves review attention from a generic Top 5 list to the specific contrast, receipt bundle, and matched direct-receipt table by population, model, endpoint, comparator, and effect direction that could confirm or kill the thesis.

## Limitations

- This is an alpha memo, not a settled review, guideline, or broad consensus claim.
- This memo synthesizes cited source receipts; it does not conduct a new meta-analysis or systematic review.
- Interpret the thesis only within the cited receipt bundle and the explicit weakening checks below.
- Independent receipts fail to reproduce the claimed contrast.
- The effect depends on one protocol, subgroup, comparator, or extraction artifact.

## What would weaken this

- Independent receipts fail to reproduce the claimed contrast.
- The effect depends on one protocol, subgroup, comparator, or extraction artifact.

## Strongest counter-evidence

- _Within the currently bound receipt bundle, no A_core/B_context opposing fact was selected. Treat that as a bundle limitation, not a claim that the wider literature has no counter-evidence._

## Next extraction

- Extract independent A_core/B_context receipts that test the lead contrast directly.
- Audit whether each direct receipt remains comparable on population, endpoint, comparator, and measurement method.

{
  "article_type": "alpha_memo",
  "domain_slug": "general",
  "researka_object_type": "submission",
  "researka_submission_id": "21607942-5b7e-40dc-a49b-91a68a7132e3",
  "title": "Bounded Mediterranean diet signal: Inversely associated with lower risk of cancer mortality (RR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.91)"
}