Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 10;12(12):3788. doi: 10.3390/nu12123788

Table 4.

Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of lung cancer risk by adherence to the dietary patterns.

Adherence to the Dietary Pattern Cancer-Control Sample (n = 439)
Crude Model p Adjusted Model p
Prudent
lower (ref.) Ref. Ref.
moderate 0.63 (0.39; 1.00) 0.0472 0.63 (0.37; 1.08) 0.1394
higher 0.57 (0.44; 0.72) <0.0001 0.72 (0.53; 0.96) 0.0432
Westernized Traditional
lower (ref.) Ref. Ref.
moderate 1.04 (0.65; 1.66) 0.8667 0.79 (0.45; 1.37) 0.5123
higher 0.96 (0.76;1.22) 0.7601 0.81 (0.60; 1.08) 0.1495
Sweet Dairy
lower (ref.) Ref. Ref.
moderate 0.86 (0.54; 1.37) 0.5203 0.68 (0.39; 1.20) 0.1495
higher 1.09 (0.86; 1.37) 0.4803 0.99 (0.75; 1.30) 0.7999
Polish–aMED score
low (0–3 points; ref.) Ref. Ref.
moderate (4–6 points) 0.50 (0.33; 0.74) 0.0004 0.51 (0.31; 0.81) 0.0048
high (7–9 points) 0.41 (0.27; 0.64) <0.0001 0.51 (0.32; 0.81) 0.0046

Ref.—reference category; Polish-aMEDscore—Polish-adapted Mediterranean diet score (range of points: 0–9); p—the level of significance assessed by Wald’s test; model adjusted for: age (categories), BMI (categories), current smoking status (never smokers, current smokers, former smokers), socioeconomic status (low, average, high), overall physical activity (low, moderate, high), the occurrence of lung cancer in relatives (yes, no, I do not know), and occupational exposure in the workplace (yes, no); reference category in the PCA: controls.