Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 14;17(1):122–134. doi: 10.4162/nrp.2023.17.1.122

Table 3. ORs of gastric cancer by the potentially protective foods intakes.

Variables No. of cases/controls Model I1) Model II2)
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Soy products (g/day)
Tertile 1 40/27 1.00 Ref. 1.00 Ref.
Tertile 2 22/28 0.39 (0.16–0.93) 0.38 (0.15–0.92)
Tertile 3 20/27 0.39 (0.16–0.94) 0.37 (0.14–0.96)
P for trend 0.127 0.131
Fruits (g/day)
Tertile 1 44/27 1.00 Ref. 1.00 Ref.
Tertile 2 18/28 0.49 (0.21–1.17) 0.38 (0.15–0.95)
Tertile 3 20/27 0.44 (0.18–1.09) 0.35 (0.13–0.94)
P for trend 0.108 0.080
Vegetables (g/day)
Tertile 1 33/27 1.00 Ref. 1.00 Ref.
Tertile 2 19/28 0.54 (0.22–1.31) 0.74 (0.29–1.90)
Tertile 3 30/27 1.06 (0.43–2.62) 1.58 (0.58–4.34)
P for trend 0.877 0.541
Dairy products (g/day)
Tertile 1 40/27 1.00 Ref. 1.00 Ref.
Tertile 2 20/28 0.46 (0.19–1.12) 0.47 (0.19–1.17)
Tertile 3 22/27 0.48 (0.20–1.14) 0.51 (0.20–1.30)
P for trend 0.193 0.281

OR, odds ratios; CI, confidence interval.

1)Model I: adjusted for age, sex body mass index (≤ 22.99, 23.0–24.99, ≥ 25, or missing), education level (≤ middle school, ≥ high school, or missing), family history of gastric cancer (no or yes), smoking status (never, past, or current smokers), alcohol consumption (never, past, < 20 g/day for women or < 40 g/day for men, or ≥ 20 g/day for women or ≥ 40 g/day for men), hospital (Chungnam University Hospital or Hanyang University Guri Hospital), and total energy intake (continuous).

2)Model II: model I + further adjusted for log intakes of each other food groups.