Oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy, reproductive history and risk of colorectal cancer in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence from epidemiologic studies suggests a possible role of exogenous and endogenous hormones in colorectal carcinogenesis in women. However, with respect to exogenous hormones, in contrast to hormone replacement therapy, few cohort studies have examined oral contraceptive use in relation to colorectal cancer risk. We used data from a large cohort study of Canadian women enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer screening to assess the association of oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy and reproductive factors with risk of colorectal cancer, overall and by subsite within the colorectum. Cancer incidence and mortality were ascertained by linkage to national databases. Among 89,835 women aged 40-59 at enrollment and followed for an average of 16.4 years, we identified 1,142 incident colorectal cancer cases. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate the associations between the exposures of interest and risk of colorectal cancer. Ever use of oral contraceptives at baseline was associated with a modest reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.94), with similar effects for different subsites within the colorectum. No trend was seen in the hazard ratios with increasing duration of oral contraceptive use. No associations were seen with use of hormone replacement therapy (ever use or duration of use) or reproductive factors. Our results are suggestive of an inverse association between oral contraceptive use and colorectal carcinogenesis. However, given the lack of a dose-response relationship and the potential for confounding, studies with more complete assessment of exogenous hormone use throughout the life course are needed to clarify this association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".