RE: Breast Cancer, Heart Disease, and Whispering “Fire” in a Public Theater
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We write in response to the editorial of Byers and Goff, who suggest that our recent paper describing an association between serum lipids, lipoproteins, and risk of breast cancer ( 1 ) is akin to “whispering fire in a public theatre” ( 2 ). It seems highly unlikely that our article, and the suggestion it contains to conduct further research into the relationship of lipids, and their modification, with risk of breast cancer, will discourage any from taking up the large expansion in the use of statins that has been proposed by the American Heart Association ( 3 ). To date, information on statin use and breast cancer risk is mostly reassuring ( 4 ), although a recent population-based study showed an increased risk of breast cancer with long-term use ( 5 ). As stated in our article, we have not yet excluded potential confounding by alcohol on the association of HDL-C and apolipoprotein A with risk of breast cancer. Nor have we excluded potential mediation by lipids of the effects of alcohol on breast cancer risk. The association of LDL-C and apolipoprotein B (Apo-B) with breast cancer risk is less likely to be explained by alcohol intake. A similar inverse association of Apo-B with risk of breast cancer was recently described in the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study ( 6 ). Work to further address these questions is in progress. Byers and Goff also suggest that our selection of subjects with mammographic density may introduce exposure to estrogen as an additional potential confounding variable. Neither of the papers they cite in support of this idea contains any evidence that mammographic density is associated with higher levels of endogenous estrogen exposure. Most studies to date of blood levels of ovarian hormones and mammographic density in adolescent or in adult premenopausal or postmenopausal women have found either no association or an inverse association. To our knowledge only one study to date in postmenopausal women found a positive association of serum levels of estradiol with mammographic density (reviewed in [ 7 ]). Randomized trials have shown that postmenopausal combined hormone therapy increases mammographic density but estrogen alone does not. Further, there are many factors with opposite effects on risk for cardiovascular disease and breast cancer. These include height, parity, age at menopause, and tamoxifen, which increases risk of venous thromboembolism and may increase risk of stroke but decreases risk of breast cancer. We appreciate Byers’ and Goff’s gracious agreement that our peer-reviewed paper merits publication and hope that their generosity will extend to tolerance of the spirit of free enquiry into the health effects of modifying lipid levels. Because of space constraints, we could not list all relevant references, but these are available on request from the authors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,071 | 0,058 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».