Spontaneous and therapeutic abortions and the risk of breast cancer among BRCAmutation carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk for developing both breast and ovarian cancer. It has been suggested that carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations may also be at increased risk of having recurrent (three or more) miscarriages. Several reproductive factors have been shown to influence the risk of breast cancer in mutation carriers, but the effects of spontaneous and therapeutic abortions on the risk of hereditary breast cancer risk have not been well studied to date. METHODS: In a matched case-control study, the frequencies of spontaneous abortions were compared among 1,878 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 950 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 657 related non-carrier controls. The rates of spontaneous and therapeutic abortions were compared for carriers with and without breast cancer. RESULTS: There was no difference in the rate of spontaneous abortions between carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and non-carriers. The number of spontaneous abortions was not associated with breast cancer risk among BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. However, BRCA2 carriers who had two or more therapeutic abortions faced a 64% decrease in the risk of breast cancer (odds ratio = 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.83; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is not a risk factor for spontaneous abortions and spontaneous abortions do not appear to influence the risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. However, having two or more therapeutic abortions may be associated with a lowered risk of breast cancer among BRCA2 carriers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".