Phytoestrogen intake from foods, during adolescence and adulthood, and risk of breast cancer by estrogen and progesterone receptor tumor subgroup among Ontario women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phytoestrogen intake may reduce breast cancer risk and limited evidence suggests this association may hold for hormone receptor-positive tumors only. The study aims were to assess whether the association between phytoestrogen intake during adolescence and adulthood and breast cancer risk varies by estrogen and progesterone receptor (ERPR) tumor subgroup. Cases were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry (2002-2003), and ERPR status was ascertained from pathology reports for 81% of cases (n = 2,438). Controls were identified through random digit dialing of Ontario households (n = 3,370). Published phytoestrogen food values were applied to food frequency questionnaire responses to assess isoflavone, lignan and total phytoestrogen intake, during adolescence and adulthood. Polytomous multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for association between phytoestrogen intake and breast cancer risk by hormone receptor ERPR tumor subgroups. Among premenopausal women, few associations were observed for adolescent or adult phytoestrogen intake across all tumor subgroups. Among postmenopausal women, adolescent phytoestrogen intake (isoflavone, lignan and total) was associated with reduced risk across all hormone receptor subgroups; however, statistical significance was most consistent within the ER+PR+ subgroup. For example, ER+PR+ postmenopausal breast cancer risk was associated with adolescent phytoestrogen intake (highest vs. lowest: OR = 0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.96). Among all women and postmenopausal women, ORs for high adult lignan intake were all below 1.0 within each tumor subgroup, suggesting reduced breast cancer risk, although none reached statistical significance. In conclusion, adolescent phytoestrogen intake was associated with reduced postmenopausal breast cancer, particularly for ER+PR+ tumor subgroup.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".