In the Physicians Health Study II, what was the impact of vitamin C and E on prostate cancer?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Antioxidant theory predicts that vitamins C and E might lower cancer risk by neutralizing reactive oxygen species, but randomized evidence is required to test that hypothesis. The Physicians’ Health Study II (PHS II) was a large randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trial that directly compared supplementation with vitamin E and vitamin C to placebo and measured subsequent cancer outcomes, including prostate cancer.

1) Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Randomized controlled trials minimize bias and are the gold standard for estimating causal effects of interventions.
- A “no impact” (null) result means incidence rates or hazard ratios in the treatment and placebo groups were statistically indistinguishable (estimate near 1, confidence interval including 1).
- Statistical significance and confidence intervals determine whether observed differences are likely due to chance.

2) Step‑by‑step reasoning process
- PHS II enrolled a large cohort of men and randomized them to receive vitamin E, vitamin C, or placebo, then followed them for years for incident prostate cancer.
- Investigators compared prostate cancer incidence between supplement and placebo groups using time‑to‑event analysis.
- The observed relative risks/hazard ratios for prostate cancer associated with vitamin E or vitamin C supplementation were approximately 1.0 and not statistically significant.
- Because the trial was adequately powered and conducted with rigorous methods, a null finding indicates the supplements did not meaningfully change prostate cancer risk.

3) Calculations
- No arithmetic calculation is necessary here beyond comparing incidence rates and noting the hazard ratio ≈ 1 with a confidence interval including 1 (i.e., no statistically significant difference).

4) Why the correct answer is correct
- The PHS II reported no reduction or increase in prostate cancer incidence with vitamin C or E supplementation; results were consistent with no effect.

5) Why other options are incorrect
- “Inconclusive” is incorrect because the trial provided a clear null result rather than indeterminate evidence.
- “Increased incidence” and “Reduced incidence” are incorrect because neither a harmful nor a protective statistically significant effect was observed.

Conclusion: The correct answer is a. No impact, which matches the provided answer.

In the Physicians Health Study II, what was the impact of vitamin C and E on prostate cancer?Single choice

Similar Questions

Which of the following production rules CORRECTLY represents: "A student passes if their score is at least 50 OR they receive a special exemption"?

Which of the following is a DISADVANTAGE of Expert Systems?

Alan Turing proposed his famous test in which publication and year?

Which of the following predicate sets CORRECTLY represents: "A Durian is a tropical fruit that has a strong smell and is grown in Malaysia"?

Which of the following BEST describes the difference between Weak AI and Strong AI?

A maze-solving robot uses BFS to find the exit. At level 1 it finds paths to rooms A, B, C. At level 2 from A it finds D, E; from B it finds F; from C it finds G, H. Which room is explored FIFTH?

Which of the following BEST illustrates inheritance in frame-based representation?

A PRODUCT frame has these slots: ProductID, Name, Price, Category. A specific instance shows: ProductID=P021, Name=Laptop, Price=RM3200, Category=Electronics. Which statement is CORRECT?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler