Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Milk production”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

236 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

Impacts of climate-driven yield changes on the affordability of healthy diets: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Food security is central to global nutrition improvement and public health goals, and healthy diets represent a higher-level aspiration beyond merely avoiding hunger. Climate change poses an increasing threat to food systems by affecting crop yields and food prices. Although climate change-driven risks to hunger have been widely studied, the extent to which climate change undermines the affordability of healthy diets while accounting for socioeconomic responses and regional inequalities remains insufficiently understood. This study aimed to quantify the effects of climate change on the future affordability of healthy diets under alternative socioeconomic and climate scenarios. METHODS: We developed an integrated modelling framework that explicitly couples multimodel crop-yield projections with an integrated assessment model (Global Change Analysis Model [GCAM]). Yield responses from six global gridded crop models driven by four climate models were integrated into GCAM, allowing endogenous socioeconomic adjustments such as land-use shifts, production reallocation, and price responses to emerge under shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). Diet affordability was then assessed using the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN's Cost and Affordability of a Healthy Diet framework across three socioeconomic-climate scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP3-6.0). FINDINGS: Under a high-emissions pathway (ie, SSP3-6.0), climate change was projected to render healthy diets unaffordable for a model-mean of 119 million people globally by 2100, even when CO2 fertilisation effects are included, with the upper end of the model ensemble reaching about 1·6 billion people. In contrast, climate-induced affordability losses were found to be negligible under both a low-emissions pathway (ie, SSP1-2.6; -0·3 million) and a medium-emission pathway (SSP2-4.5; +0·2 million). Under a high-emission pathway, model-mean projections indicated that diet costs could increase by up to 12% in the most affected regions by the end of the century. Under medium emissions, cost increases were projected to remain below 4%, whereas under low emissions, affordability changes were projected to be minimum across regions (within approximately 0·5%). Substantial regional disparities emerged, with the largest and most consistent affordability losses concentrated in low-income regions that contributed least to historical greenhouse gas emissions. Under SSP3-6.0, these disparities persisted particularly in regions of Africa and Asia despite projected three-to-five-fold increases in income over the century, with climate-induced disruptions to food systems increasing the number of people unable to afford a healthy diet through mid-century. INTERPRETATION: Climate change is likely to exacerbate global nutritional inequalities by disproportionately increasing the affordability risks of healthy diets in regions that have contributed least to historical greenhouse gas emissions. Under high-warming scenarios, socioeconomic development alone is insufficient to fully offset these risks, highlighting the structural vulnerability of low-income food systems to climate-driven price shocks. These findings suggest that in the absence of targeted interventions, climate change could continue to undermine progress towards equitable and health-oriented nutrition outcomes. FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China; National Natural Science Foundation of China; National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies Climate Impacts Group; Future of Life Institute; and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition.

Journal Article

Improved quality of life and prolonged survival with add-on homeopathic treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Alongside conventional anticancer treatment, add-on homeopathy might help to alleviate adverse effects of conventional therapy. AIM: The aim of this study was to replicate previous studies on the effect of adjunctive homeopathy on quality of life (QoL) and survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHOD: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm multicenter phase III study with quadruple-checked data analysis, we investigated the potential effects of an add-on homeopathic treatment compared to placebo in patients with stage IV NSCLC in terms of QoL. Ninety-eight received either individualized homeopathic medicinal products (HMPs; n&#x2009;=&#x2009;51) or placebo (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;47) in a double-blinded fashion. Fifty-two control patients without homeopathic treatment were only observed in terms of their survival rate. The ingredients of the various HMPs were mainly prepared of plant, mineral, or animal origin. The data entry and statistical analysis were subject to an exceptional quadruple-checked data analysis process. The analysis presented in this article was inspired by our earlier report of this trial published in The Oncologist in 2020, which was retracted by that journal in November 2025 after two corrections; a majority of the co-authors disagreed with this decision. The present article is based on the same trial dataset but was deliberately designed to highlight the unique research methodology: design and preparation by a lead statistician, data entry, data clearing and independent statistical evaluation were performed in four mutually independent steps, reporting follows the CONSORT statement, and the interpretation of the findings has been reframed conservatively. RESULTS: Global health status (QoL) was higher in the homeopathy group than in the placebo group after 9&#xa0;weeks and after 18&#xa0;weeks (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). With the exception of cognitive functioning at 9&#xa0;weeks and of pain, diarrhea and financial difficulties at 9&#xa0;weeks, all functional and symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 favored the homeopathy group (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001 for the multivariate comparisons), with between-group differences exceeding the threshold of 10 points that is generally regarded as clinically meaningful. Median survival time over the 730-day observation period was 435&#xa0;days in the homeopathy group, 257&#xa0;days in the placebo group (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.010), and 228&#xa0;days in the non-randomized control group (p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001); the corresponding 2-year survival rates were 45.1%, 23.4%, and 13.5% (homeopathy vs. placebo p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.020; homeopathy vs. control p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). The difference between the placebo group and the non-randomized control group was not statistically significant (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.154). CONCLUSION: In this trial, add-on homeopathy was associated with better quality of life across most functional and symptom domains, with clinically meaningful effect sizes congruently to a previous open study. Survival time was significantly longer in the homeopathy group compared to both the placebo and control groups. Independent replication, ideally within contemporary immuno-oncological treatment regimens is required. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01509612; January 7, 2012.

Humans