Serum IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 Molar Ratio and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experimental evidence suggests that an overexpression of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I is implicated in human pancreatic tumors. Increased IGF-II and decreased IGF binding protein (IGFBP)-3 serum concentrations have been linked to a number of other cancers. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial cohort of men and women 55 to 74 years of age at baseline to test whether prediagnostic circulating IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio concentrations were associated with exocrine pancreatic cancer risk. Between 1994 and 2006, 187 incident cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma occurred (follow-up of up to 11.7 years). Two controls (n = 374), who were alive at the time the case was diagnosed, were selected for each case and matched by age, race, sex, and date of blood draw. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) with the use of conditional logistic regression, adjusting for smoking. RESULTS: IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBP-3 concentrations were not significantly associated with pancreatic cancer (highest compared with lowest quartile: OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.91-2.76; and P-trend = 0.25; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.49-1.50; and P-trend = 0.31; and OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.51-1.51; and P-trend = 0.47, respectively). However, a significant positive trend was observed with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio levels (highest compared with lowest quartile: OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.89-2.66; P-trend = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A higher IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio represents increased free IGF-I, which may be a risk factor for pancreatic cancer. IMPACT: Our results highlight the importance of this biomarker for further investigation in large prospective cohort studies and pooled analysis with other prospective cohorts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".