待核清单处理：第 2、3、4 节（2026-10-14）

对应 全书审校待核清单-2026-10-14.md 的第 2、3 节。清单里没有第 4 节的项，「重审时新报的」里也没有这三节的项。

第 2 节

第 1 条备注「换一种算法差别就不显著」

  • 查：Nåsell 2010 摘要，Europe PMC PMID 20516308，https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00627
  • 原文：「The proportion of patients with at least one postoperative complication was significantly larger in the control group … (38% and 20%, respectively; p = 0.048)」「A secondary analysis showed that the odds of having a complication were 2.51 times (95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 6.9 times) higher … but this difference was not significant.」
  • 处理：核实是对的。备注改成「作者换成比值比又算了一遍，差别就不显著了（OR 2.51，95% CI 0.96–6.9）」。

第 3 条备注：伐尼克兰副作用、尼古丁替代别骤停

  • 查：Cochrane CD006103.pub8 全文（PMC10169257）；DailyMed NicoDerm CQ 说明书 https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=93b2d1b9-83c1-40b5-b6af-90c38c8d6cef
  • 原文：「people randomised to receive varenicline were more likely to report experiencing nausea (RR 2.61, 95% CI 2.44 to 2.80 …), insomnia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.47 …), abnormal dreams (RR 1.82 …」「The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time.」说明书：「use according to the following 10-week schedule: STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 Use one 21 mg patch/day Use one 14 mg patch/day Use one 7 mg patch/day Weeks 1-6 Weeks 7-8 Weeks 9-10」
  • 处理：副作用核实是对的，数字补进收益栏。「有精神科病史的要跟医生说明」没有找到对应原文（综述里有精神科病史人群的试验，但没说要告知医生），标成作者的建议。「别自己突然停，按医生说的减量」改成「贴片按说明书或医生说的一步步减量再停」，DailyMed 说明书补进来源栏，分步方案写进收益栏。

第 6 条备注：WHO 不推荐、英国纳入戒烟服务、「上头电子烟」来源

  • 查：WHO 2023-12-14 新闻 https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2023-urgent-action-needed-to-protect-children-and-prevent-the-uptake-of-e-cigarettes；英国卫生部 2023-04-11 新闻稿 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smokers-urged-to-swap-cigarettes-for-vapes-in-world-first-scheme；最高检转载法治日报 https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/zdgz/202110/t20211011_531831.shtml
  • 原文：WHO「E-cigarettes as consumer products are not shown to be effective for quitting tobacco use at the population level.」「it is not recommended that governments permit sale of e-cigarettes as consumer products in pursuit of a cessation objective.」「should … regulate the products as medicines」「Whilst long-term health effects are not fully understood」「E-cigarettes have been allowed on the open market and aggressively marketed to young people.」英国「almost 1 in 5 of all smokers in England will be provided with a vape starter kit alongside behavioural support」「One million smokers will be encouraged to swap cigarettes for vapes」。最高检「这种“上头”电子烟内含有被国家整类列管的合成大麻素成分」。
  • 处理：原文说的和备注不完全一样。WHO 说的是「当普通商品卖，没证据显示能在人群里帮人戒烟，不建议政府为戒烟放开销售，要用就当药管」，不是笼统的「不推荐当戒烟手段」；「英国放进了戒烟服务」改成英格兰 2023 年「以电子烟换香烟」计划。三处来源补进来源栏。

第 8 条：口腔癌、食管癌剂量反应、含烟草槟榔更危险

  • 查：IARC 第 100E 卷 PDF（monographs.iarc.who.int）本机只拿到 HTML 壳页，NCBI Bookshelf 是验证码页，都没取到。改用 Europe PMC 三篇荟萃：Guha 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28643，Akhtar 2013 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-012-0113-9，Shah 2025 https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-1502
  • 原文：Guha「The meta-relative risk (mRR) for oral/oropharyngeal cancer in the Indian subcontinent was 2.56 (95%CI, 2.00-3.28; 15 studies) for BQ-T and 7.74 (95%CI, 5.38-11.13; 31 studies) for BQ+T; in Taiwan, China, the mRR for BQ-T was 10.98 (95%CI, 4.86-24.84; 13 studies).」「the risk of oral/oropharyngeal cancer increased with increasing daily amount and duration (years) of chewing BQ in India and Taiwan, China.」Akhtar「adjusted main-effect summary OR(RE) = 3.05; 95 % CI 2.41, 3.87」「adjusted additive interaction-effect summary OR(RE) = 6.79; 95 % CI 4.71, 9.79」。Shah「reduced head and neck cancer risk following cessation of betel quid use with (RR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.81) or without tobacco (RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.95)」「Long-term cessation (≥20 years) conferred substantial benefits (RR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61」
  • 处理：剂量反应、食管癌、戒后下降核实是对的，数字进收益栏、三篇进来源栏。「含烟草的槟榔更危险」按原文收窄：只在印度次大陆的数据里加烟草的更高，台湾不加烟草的风险也很高（10.98），备注改成这样。

第 10 条：标题「缺牙及时补」只有关联证据；「圆头电动牙刷证据最确定」

  • 查：Yaacob 2014（CD002281.pub3）与 Deacon 2010（CD004971.pub2）摘要，Europe PMC
  • 原文：Yaacob「rotation oscillation (27 trials) … The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.」Deacon「Due to the dearth of trials assessing the same mode of action, no definitive conclusions can be stated regarding the superiority of one mode of powered toothbrush over any other.」
  • 处理：「最确定」按原文改成「试验最多（27 项），短期和长期都看到牙菌斑和牙龈炎明显减少」。标题「缺牙及时补」：没有研究测过补牙能不能降死亡，备注补一句「建议补是因为缺牙影响吃东西，这是作者的判断」。标题没改，列进回报。

第 11 条：Ekelund 2019 备注断言

  • 查：Ekelund 2019 全文（PMC6699591）
  • 原文：「individual level data from eight studies (n=36 383; mean age 62.6 years; 72.8% women), with median follow-up of 5.8 years」「We attempted to minimise bias from reverse causation by excluding all deaths within the first two years in sensitivity analyses. The hazard ratios were materially unchanged … However, bias from reverse causation might persist.」
  • 处理：「跟踪时间短，参与者偏老」核实是对的，数字补进收益栏。「真实好处没有 0.52 倍那么大」原文没这么说（去掉头两年死亡后结果基本不变，只说偏差可能还在），改成「可能说得偏大，这是本书的推断」，并在收益栏写明论文作者的敏感性分析。

第 30 条：潮汕、太行山食管癌与趁烫喝

  • 查：Europe PMC 检索 Chaoshan/Shantou/Taihang 加 hot/temperature 加 esophageal，只找到病例报告和影像研究的引言顺带一句，没有研究这两个地区烫食与食管癌关系的原始文献。改用国内全国性队列 Yu 2018（中国慢性病前瞻性研究）https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-2000
  • 原文：「those who drank burning-hot tea and 15 g or more of alcohol daily had the greatest risk for esophageal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 5.00 [95% CI, 3.64 to 6.88]). Likewise, the HR for current smokers who drank burning-hot tea daily was 2.03 (CI, 1.55 to 2.67).」「Drinking tea at high temperatures is associated with an increased risk for esophageal cancer when combined with excessive alcohol or tobacco use.」参照组是「participants who drank tea less than weekly and consumed fewer than 15 g of alcohol daily」。
  • 处理：潮汕、太行山那句核不到，删掉。换成 Yu 2018 的国内数据，写进备注，来源补进来源栏。

第 31 条：备注断言

  • 查：Lindqvist 2016 摘要，PMID 26992108
  • 原文：「Women with active sunlight exposure habits experience a lower mortality rate than women who avoid sun exposure; however, they are at an increased risk of skin cancer.」
  • 处理：「晒太阳会增加皮肤癌风险」核实是对的，改成「论文作者自己也写明，常晒太阳的女性得皮肤癌的风险更高」。「回避晒太阳的人可能本来就体弱、不爱出门」摘要里没有，标成作者的推测。

第 33 条：胃食管反流、痔疮、肠易激吃辣加重

  • 查：没有找到能逐字核对的官方或荟萃原文。
  • 处理：常识性提醒，「会加重」改「可能加重」，标成作者经验。

第 35 条：「每天三四个」门槛；美国膳食指南取消胆固醇上限

  • 查：2015–2020 美国膳食指南 PDF https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf（pdftotext 逐字取）；Drouin-Chartier 2020 BMJ 摘要 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m513
  • 原文：指南「The Key Recommendation from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines to limit consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 mg per day is not included in the 2015 edition, but this change does not suggest that dietary cholesterol is no longer important to consider when building healthy eating patterns. As recommended by the IOM, individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.」Drouin-Chartier「consumption of at least one egg per day was not associated with incident cardiovascular disease risk … (hazard ratio … 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.05)」「an increase of one egg per day was not associated with cardiovascular disease risk (pooled relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03」「moderate egg consumption (up to one egg per day) is not associated with cardiovascular disease risk overall」
  • 处理：膳食指南那句原文说的不一样：取消了上限，但同时说要尽量少吃，备注按原文补全。「一天一个不必担心」按 Drouin-Chartier 收窄成「和心血管病没看出关联」（它看的是心血管病，不是总死亡），这篇补进收益栏和来源栏。「也有研究没发现鸡蛋和死亡率有关」改成「和心血管病有关」。说人话删掉「只是别每天吃三四个」，换成收益栏里有的那句。「三四个」这个门槛没有研究依据，备注写明是作者的判断。标题没改，列进回报。

第 36 条：日本浴缸猝死

  • 查：日本消费者厅提醒页 https://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/consumer_safety/caution/caution_084/；Ukai 2020 摘要
  • 原文：「「浴槽内での及び浴槽への転落による溺死及び溺水」による死亡者数は、令和6年に7,776人となっています。」「暖かい室内と寒い脱衣所や浴室との温度差などによる急激な血圧の変動や、熱いお湯をはった浴槽内に長くつかることによる体温上昇での意識障害などが挙げられています。」Ukai「A total of 30 076 participants aged 40-59 years」
  • 处理：原文是「浴缸里溺死」，不是「猝死」，统计不分年龄。「每年有大量老人在浴缸里猝死」改成「2024 年在浴缸里溺死的有 7776 人」加消费者厅说的原因。顺带把 Ukai 研究对象 40 到 59 岁补进收益栏。

第 39 条：「唯一被证明能搬动生物钟」

  • 查：Czeisler 1990 摘要 PMID 2325721；docs/生物钟和夜班.md 第八节
  • 原文：摘要只说「maladaptation … can be treated effectively with scheduled exposure to bright light at night and darkness during the day」，没有「唯一」。长文也没写「唯一」。
  • 处理：「唯一」核不到，改成「后者在实验里真把生物钟搬了过去」。CLAUDE.md 目录简介里也有「唯一被证明真能搬动钟的办法」，我不许改，交主任务。

第 44 条：瑞典数据口径

  • 查：Mubanga 2017 全文（PMC5693989），Mubanga 2019 摘要
  • 原文：「In single- and multiple-person households, dog ownership (13.1%) was associated with lower risk of death, HR 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65-0.69) and 0.89 (0.87-0.91)」；全文「Dog ownership was inversely associated with … all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI, 0.79–0.82」；校正项「sex, marital status, presence of children in the home, population density, area of residence, region of birth, income and latitude」。2019 年心梗后「HR 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.75) for those who lived alone, and HR of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.90) for those living with a partner or a child」，中风后 0.73、0.88。
  • 处理：核实是对的，收益栏原有数字都对得上。补一句全体合并后的 HR 0.80。

第 3 节

第 2 条备注「配合早上见光才有效果」

  • 查：Phillips 2017 全文（PMC5468315）
  • 原文：「A mathematical model … was used to demonstrate that Irregular vs. Regular group differences in circadian timing were likely primarily due to their different patterns of light exposure.」「our results suggest this could be treated in undergraduates through light interventions used to advance circadian rhythms」「light-based interventions may be therapeutically effective」
  • 处理：原文没说「早上」，也没做干预试验，「才有效果」说过头。改成「研究者用模型推算……建议可以试试用光来调，但没有做试验验证。白天多出门见光是从他们的推算推出来的」。

第 8 条标题「墨水屏」没测过

  • 查：Chang 2015 全文 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4313820/
  • 原文：「comparing the effects of reading before bedtime using a light-emitting eReader (LE-eBook) with reading a printed book by reflected light」「reading an LE-eBook (iPad …) in otherwise very dim room light for ∼4 h before bedtime for five consecutive evenings」「the LE-eBook was set to maximum brightness throughout the 4-h reading session」
  • 处理：标题加字成「要看就看纸书或不开屏幕灯的墨水屏」。备注写明墨水屏没测，不开灯的墨水屏归到纸书这边是从「纸书靠反射光」推出来的，开灯的没有数据。收益栏补上 iPad、最高亮度、约 4 小时、连 5 晚这些实验条件。

第 18 条标题「晒太阳」，证据是灯箱光照治疗

  • 查：Golden 2005 是光照治疗荟萃，没有晒太阳的研究。
  • 处理：备注补「那些研究用的是专门的光照灯，不是晒太阳；换成白天出门晒太阳是从光照治疗推出来的」。标题没改，列进回报。

第 23 条标题「砸东西」收益栏没有

  • 查：Kjærvik 2024 摘要，PMID 38518585
  • 原文：「others focus on increasing arousal (e.g., hitting a bag, jogging, cycling)」「These findings do not support the ideas that venting anger or going for a run are effective anger management activities.」
  • 处理：原文举例只有打沙袋、慢跑、骑车。备注补「砸东西这项研究没单独测过，它和打沙袋一样让身体更兴奋，归到同一类是作者的推论」。标题没改，列进回报。