Reply to association between tamoxifen treatment and diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Drs. Hejazi and Rastmanesh for their interest in our article. The purpose of our study was to determine whether there is an association between tamoxifen therapy and diabetes, and our findings will need to be confirmed in other populations. Although our population-based databases have the advantage of providing a large sample size with which to address that question, they lack detailed clinical information such as that regarding weight gain and other risk factors. We agree that the mechanisms postulated for this association are uncertain. We acknowledge that tamoxifen is a selective estrogen receptor modulator, and that its effects on estrogen vary by tissue site. As we discuss in our article,1 there is evidence that estrogen protects against beta-cell failure and diabetes,2-4 leading to speculation that the observed increase in diabetes may be related to its estrogen inhibitory effects at the beta-cell level. This hypothesis is supported by the finding that tamoxifen induces beta-cell apoptosis and insulin deficiency in mice through direct estrogen antagonism.3 However, as the authors point out, alternative hypotheses such as the potential inflammatory effects of tamoxifen also need to be considered. Further studies that include more comprehensive clinical and metabolic data are needed to explore this intriguing finding. Supported by Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (through funding provided by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Research and Innovation of the Government of Ontario) and a Canadian Diabetes Association/ Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Clinician Scientist Award. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES Dr. Lipscombe receives salary support from the Canadian Diabetes Association/CIHR Clinician Scientist Award. Lorraine L. Lipscombe MD, MSc* , Paula A. Rochon MD, MPH* , * Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".