Diabetes and breast cancer among women with <i>BRCA1</i> and <i>BRCA2</i> mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperinsulinemia and the metabolic syndrome are both risk factors for breast cancer. It is not clear if diabetes is associated with the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical histories of 6052 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, half of whom had been diagnosed with breast cancer. They estimated the odds ratio for breast cancer, given a self-report of diabetes. They then estimated the hazard ratio for a new diagnosis of diabetes associated with a history of breast cancer. RESULTS: There was no excess of diabetes in the period before the diagnosis of breast cancer, compared with controls with no diagnosis of breast cancer. The risk of diabetes was doubled among BRCA carriers in the 15-year period after the diagnosis of breast cancer (relative risk, 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.8; P = .0001), compared with carriers without cancer. The risk was particularly high for women with a body mass index (BMI) >25.0 kg/m(2) (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 4.0-8.6; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: After a diagnosis of breast cancer, women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation face a 2-fold increase in the risk of diabetes, which is exacerbated by a high BMI.
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".