Dietary carbohydrates and breast cancer risk: A prospective study of the roles of overall glycemic index and glycemic load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined breast cancer risk in association with overall glycemic index (GI), glycemic load (GL), and dietary carbohydrate and sugar intake in a prospective cohort of 49,613 Canadian women enrolled in the National Breast Screening Study who completed a self-administered food frequency questionnaire between 1980 and 1985. Linkages to national mortality and cancer databases yielded data on deaths and cancer incidence, with follow-up ending between 1998 and 2000. During a mean follow-up of 16.6 years, we observed 1,461 incident breast cancer cases. GI, GL, total carbohydrate and total sugar intake were not associated with breast cancer risk in the total cohort. However, there was evidence of effect modification of the association between GI and breast cancer risk by menopausal status (p = 0.01), the hazard ratio for the highest versus the lowest quintile level of GI being 0.78 (95% CI = 0.52-1.16; ptrend = 0.12) in premenopausal women and 1.87 (95% CI = 1.18-2.97; ptrend = 0.01) in postmenopausal women. The associations between GI and GL were not modified by body mass index (BMI) or by vigorous physical activity among pre- or postmenopausal women. Similarly, the associations between GI/GL and risk in postmenopausal women were not modified by BMI, vigorous physical activity, or ever use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), although the associations were slightly stronger among those who reported no vigorous physical activity (ptrend = 0.02), among those who reported ever using HRT (ptrend = 0.02) and among normal-weight women (BMI < 25 kg/m2; ptrend = 0.03). Our data suggest that consumption of diets with high GI values may be associated with increased risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women, possibly more so among subgroups defined by participation in vigorous physical activity, ever use of HRT and those who are not overweight.
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".