Selenium and the risk of cancer in BRCA1 carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has not been established if dietary factors or nutritional supplements impact on the incidence of cancer in high-risk women. We randomised 1135 women with a BRCA1 mutation to 250 micrograms daily of elemental selenium as sodium selenite, or to placebo, in a double-blind trial. After a median follow-up period of 35 months (range 6 to 62 months), there were 60 incident cases of cancer diagnosed in the selenium-supplemented group, versus 45 cases in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1.4; 95% CI: 0.9 to 2.0). Selenium supplementation was not associated with a reduction in the risk of primary breast cancer (hazard ratio 1.3; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.5), of contralateral breast cancer (hazard ratio 1.5; 95% CI: 0.7 to 3.2), or of ovarian cancer (hazard ratio 1.3; 95% CI: 0.6 to 2.7). The results of this study do not support the recommendation that selenium supplementation should be offered to BRCA1 carriers for chemoprevention. Part II Adnexectomy, genotypes and selenium level as markers of the risk of cancer In these part we conducted a nested case-control study of 68 women with breast cancer and 17 women with ovarian cancer and 170 controls matched 1 to 2. Cases and controls were matched for age at enrolment, past history of breast cancer, oophorectomy and whether they received selenium supplement or placebo during cancer chemoprevention trial. Combinations of clinical status, genotypes and selenium levels strongly associated with extremely low risk of cancer have been identified. The strongest associations have been found for GPX4 variants: a. all nTT and Se level 60-80µg/l – OR 0.32, p: 0.0009 b. all TT and Se level >80µg/l – OR 0.10, p: 0.047 c. for carriers without adnexectomy and with TT variant, Se level >80µg/l – OR 0.038, p: 0.014.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".