MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B132: Risk factors for uncommon histologically defined subgroups of breast cancer using the Breast Cancer Family Registry

2010· article· en· W1966512848 on OpenAlexaff
Meghan W. Boedges, Irene L. Andrulis, Esther M. John, John L. Hopper, Julia A. Knight, Yuyan Liao, Frances P. O’Malley, Anna Marie Mulligan, Melissa C. Southey, Hanina Hibshoosh, Fang Fang Zhang, Mary Beth Terry

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Prevention Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerCancer registryCancerInternal medicineFamily historyPopulationOncologyBody mass indexGynecologyRisk factorRelative riskObstetricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease; risk factors may differ for histologically-defined subgroups. Because most breast cancers are of ductal or lobular histology, previous studies have been limited in their ability to evaluate risk factors in rarer histologies, such as medullary, mucinous, and tubular, due to small sample sizes. We evaluated risk factors for histologically-defined breast cancer subgroups (ductal, lobular, tubular, medullary, or mucinous) using population-based data from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Data were available for 3260 incident breast cancer cases (including 92 cases of medullary, 90 cases of mucinous, and 86 cases of tubular histology) and 2997 unrelated controls. Several reproductive factors were associated with the risk of mucinous breast cancer, whereas cigarette smoking and body mass index (BMI) were associated with the risk of medullary breast cancer. For the mucinous subtype, we observed positive associations with nulliparity (OR=2.54, 95%CI 1.17–5.50) and age at first birth (OR=1.08, 95%CI=1.02–1.14, for each additional year of age), and an inverse association with age at menarche (≥13 vs. ≤11) (OR=0.52, 95%CI 0.29–0.94). These reproductive factors were not associated with other histologic subtypes. Mucinous cases were less likely than controls to have used oral contraceptives (OC use ≤ 5 years: OR=0.50, 95%CI 0.28–0.92; OC use > 5 years, OR=0.45, 95%CI 0.24–0.84), and these findings did not differ by menopausal status. Oral contraceptive use was also inversely associated with tubular histology among premenopausal women only (OC use > 5 years, OR=0.35, 95%CI 0.14–0.87), but was not associated with other histologic subtypes when compared with controls. Medullary histology was inversely associated with smoking status (former smoker vs. never smoker, OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.14–0.62), and positively associated with BMI (OR=1.05, 95%CI 1.01–1.09, for each one-unit increase in BMI). Other known breast cancer risk factors, such as hormone-replacement therapy (HRT), breastfeeding history, and alcohol use, were not associated with the any of the rarer subtypes. Family history of breast cancer was associated with increased risk of all histologic subtypes. If replicated, these findings suggest different patterns for selected breast cancer risk factors, such as parity, oral contraceptive use, and smoking, by tumor histology. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2010;3(1 Suppl):B132.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Prevention ResearchSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207