Active cigarette smoking and risk of breast cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although epidemiological evidence on the role of active cigarette smoking in breast cancer risk has been inconsistent, recent literature supports a modest association between smoking and breast cancer. This association is particularly observed in women who smoke for a long duration, or who smoke for a long time prior to their first pregnancy. Here, we provide updated results on cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS). The NBSS is a large cohort of 89,835 women, aged 40-59, who were followed for a mean of 22.1 years, resulting in the ascertainment of 6,549 incident cases of breast cancer. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of cigarette smoking variables with breast cancer risk. We found breast cancer to be associated with duration (40 years vs. 0: HR = 1.57; 95%CI = 1.29-1.92), intensity (40 cigarettes per day vs. 0: HR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.04-1.40), cumulative exposure (40 pack-years vs. 0: HR = 1.19; 95%CI = 1.06-1.13) and latency (40 years since initiation vs. 0: HR = 1.19; 95%CI = 1.10-1.53) of cigarette smoking. Number of years smoked prior to first full-term pregnancy was associated with higher risk of breast cancer than comparative years smoked post-pregnancy (among parous women, 5 years pre pregnancy vs. 0: HR = 1.18; 95%CI = 1.10-1.26). These results strongly support a role for cigarette smoking in breast cancer etiology and emphasize the importance of timing of this exposure.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it