MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000884817 · doi:10.1002/ijc.11624

Serum concentrations of IGF‐I, IGFBP‐3 and c‐peptide and risk of hyperplasia and cancer of the breast in postmenopausal women

2003· article· en· W2000884817 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Schairer, Deirdre A. Hill, Susan R. Sturgeon, Thomas R. Fears, Michaël Pollak, Carolyn Mies, Regina G. Ziegler, Robert N. Hoover, Mark E. Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineOdds ratioHyperplasiaEndocrinologyBreast diseaseHyperinsulinemiaAtypical hyperplasiaC-peptideRisk factorQuartileCancerOncologyInsulinInsulin resistanceConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental evidence suggests that insulin and insulin-related growth factors may play a role in breast pathology through their mitogenic and anti-apoptotic effects on breast cells. Our objective was to assess the relationship between serum concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), its major binding protein (IGFBP-3), the ratio IGF-I:IGFBP-3, c-peptide (a marker of insulin secretion) and the ratio c-peptide:fructosamine (a marker of insulin resistance) and the risk of epithelial hyperplasia (an established breast cancer risk factor) and localized breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Study subjects were patients who provided serum before breast biopsy or mastectomy in 3 hospitals in Grand Rapids, MI between 1977 and 1987. Two case groups, 186 subjects with epithelial hyperplasia of the breast and 185 subjects with localized breast cancer, were compared to 159 subjects with nonproliferative breast changes that have not been associated with increased breast cancer risk. Serum concentrations of IGF-I, IGFBP-3 and the ratio IGF-I:IGFBP-3 were not related to risk of either hyperplasia or breast cancer. For women in the highest quartile of c-peptide or of c-peptide:fructosamine compared to those in the lowest quartile, the odds ratios (ORs) for hyperplasia were 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-6.5) and 3.3 (95% CI 1.5-7.3), respectively (p trend = 0.02 and 0.02, respectively). The corresponding ORs for breast cancer were 1.5 (95% CI 0.7-3.0) and 1.6 (95% CI 0.8-3.2), respectively (p trend = 0.35 and 0.25, respectively). Our results suggest that insulin and insulin resistance may play a role in breast pathology in postmenopausal 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.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations82
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207