MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P6-10-15: Association between vitamin D supplementation and mammographic density change over time in women at high risk for breast cancer

2015· article· en· W1185137088 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine D. Crew, Tong Xiao, Mary Beth Terry

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerBody mass indexVitamin D and neurologyConfoundingLogistic regressionProspective cohort studyCancerInternal medicineGynecologyOncologyBreast biopsyMammographyObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to breast cancer risk, but less is known about vitamin D and changes over time in mammographic density (MD), a strong predictor of breast cancer risk. Studies that have evaluated the association between MD and vitamin D have primarily been cross-sectional designs and focused on average-risk postmenopausal women. Methods: Using data from a prospective cohort study (1991-2013), we examined whether vitamin D supplementation was associated with MD at baseline and changes in MD over time. High-risk women had a first-degree family history of breast cancer, atypical hyperplasia, lobular or ductal carcinoma in situ. They completed baseline questionnaires with self-reported vitamin D supplement use (Y/N) and had serial mammograms with qualitative assessment of MD (BIRADS categories: 1=0-24%, 2=25-50%, 3=51-75%, 4=76-100%). GEE logistic regression and unordered polytomous regression models were used to assess the association between change in MD in the short-term (<3 years) and long-term (≥3 years) with vitamin D use (stayed dense: BIRADS 3/4 for both exams; stayed nondense: BIRADS 1/2; increased: BIRADS 1/2 to 3/4; decreased: BIRADS 3/4 to 1/2). Primary confounders were included in every model (age, race, body mass index [BMI], menopausal status) and other additional confounders were selected based on 10% change-of-coefficient rule. Results: Of 1171 women who had vitamin D supplement information and a baseline mammogram, 615 had two mammograms within 3 years from baseline and 461 had a long-term follow-up mammogram. Median age was 49 (range, 17-88), median BMI 23.6 kg/m2 (range, 14.9-53.4), and mean follow-up time 6 years (range, 9 months-18 years). Among women with a BMI<25, no vitamin D supplementation was associated with dense baseline MD (BIRADS 3/4) after adjusting for age, race, menopausal status, and annual household income (OR=1.61, 95% CI=1.12-2.33). Those who reported vitamin D use were about 50% less likely to demonstrate long-term increases in MD (see table below). Vitamin D and short-term and long-term mammographic density changes Stay denseIncreaseDecreaseStay nondense nn; OR (95% CI)n; OR (95% CI)n; OR (95% CI)Vitamin D*29136; 0.80 (0.38-1.66)60; 1.00 (0.53-1.89)209; 1.41 (0.91-2.17)Vitamin D**29136; 0.82 (0.37-1.80)60; 0.74 (0.37-1.47)209; 1.37 (0.87-2.16)Vitamin D***21132; 0.46 (0.20-1.04)69; 1.08 (0.58-1.99)134; 1.32 (0.78-2.23)Vitamin D****21132; 0.49 (0.21-1.14)69; 1.12 (0.60-2.11)134; 1.34 (0.78-2.30)*Short-term: adjusted for age, BMI, race and menopausal status; **Short-term: additional adjustment for highest education level, annual household income; ***Long-term: adjusted for age, BMI, race and menopausal status; ****Long-term: additional adjustment for highest education level, age of first childbirth, time intervals from the first to the last mammogram Discussion: Although vitamin D supplementation was not associated with short-term changes in MD, we did observe a trend toward an association with long-term change among high-risk women. If replicated in larger studies, our study gives added evidence that MD changes may need longer observation time. Citation Format: Katherine D Crew, Tong Xiao, Mary Beth Terry. Association between vitamin D supplementation and mammographic density change over time in women at high risk for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-10-15.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207