MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997536474 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-07-0086

Dietary Iron and Heme Iron Intake and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study

2007· article· en· W1997536474 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey C. Kabat, Anthony B. Miller, Meera Jain, Thomas E. Rohan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineProspective cohort studyCohort studyCohortPhysiologyCancerHemeInternal medicineAlcohol intakeEnvironmental healthOncologyAlcoholChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies suggest that elevated body iron levels may contribute to breast carcinogenesis; however, epidemiologic evidence is lacking. We used data from a large cohort study of Canadian women to assess breast cancer in association with total iron and heme iron intake. Among 49,654 women ages 40 to 59 followed for an average of 16.4 years, we identified 2,545 incident breast cancer cases. Data from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline were used to calculate total dietary iron and heme iron intake. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we found no association of iron or heme iron intake with risk of breast cancer overall, in women consuming 30+ g of alcohol per day, or in women who had ever used hormone replacement therapy. The present study offers no support for an association of iron or heme iron intake with breast cancer risk or for a modification by iron of the effect of alcohol or estrogen. However, further cohort studies with repeated measurement of iron intake are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicIron Metabolism and DisordersFrench-language works237,207