Anthropometric factors and risk of melanoma in women: A pooled analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropometric factors such as height, weight and body mass index are related to the occurrence of certain malignancies in women including cancers of the breast, ovary and endometrium. Several studies have investigated the relation between height and weight or body mass and the risk of cutaneous melanoma in women, but results have been inconsistent. We conducted a collaborative analysis of these factors using the original data from 8 case-control studies of melanoma in women (2,083 cases and 2,782 controls), with assessment of the potential confounding effects of socioeconomic, pigmentary and sun exposure-related factors. Women in the highest quartile of height had an increased risk of melanoma [pooled odds ratio (pOR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.6]. We also found an elevated risk associated with weight gain in adult life of 2 kg or more (pOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.0). Stratifying by age at melanoma diagnosis (<50, >or=50 yr), we found this risk greater among women <50 yr of age. Associations were unaffected by adjustment for other known risk factors for melanoma. There was no evidence that the effects varied for different histologic subtypes of cutaneous melanoma. There was no association with body weight per se, body mass index, or body surface area, either recent or in young adulthood. In aggregate, data from these studies suggest that greater height and weight gain may be risk factors for cutaneous melanoma in women.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it