{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02106430155210643, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006097560975609756, 'mean_word_length': 5.333333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Error in Author's Name.

tests were also presented in those tables and were highly statistically significant. For a simple visual presentation of consistent study results, we chose to present only the results for the highest quintile compared with the lowest quintile from each study in eFigures 1 and 2, noting that these results were generated from analyses that included all study participants. In addition, we presented dose-response relationships of fiber intake and yogurt consumption with lung cancer risk in eFigure 3 in the Supplement.1 Wu and Leung also mistook the study, a consortium-based poolingproject, foraliterature-basedmeta-analysis.Asdescribed in the Methods,1 the study was based on an international consortium and included individual data of more than 1.4 million participants from 10 well-established population-based cohorts. We applied 2 parallel analyses—a pooled individual data analysis and a cohort-specific analysis followed by a meta-analysis. Our study is an original research project and not a systematic review. Therefore, the critique on publication bias does not apply, nor does the critique on the omission of clinical trials. Finally, cancer outcomes of the study were ascertained by each individual cohort with proven protocols, and details have been previously reported in the citations provided in the article.1 We applied a rigid quality control in our statistical analysis, and all analytic programs were checked by an independent researcher. We were restricted by cohort institutional review boards from sharing cohort member information. We appreciate Wu and Leung’s interest in the research findings. Nonetheless, we believe that their critiques were unfounded and resulted from misunderstandings of the study design and misinterpretations of the statistics.