MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010336330 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600278

A prospective cohort study of cigarette smoking and the risk of endometrial cancer

2002· article· en· W2010336330 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Terry, Anthony B. Miller, Thomas E. Rohan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsEndometrial cancerMedicineProspective cohort studyHazard ratioCohort studyCohortBreast cancerCancerGynecologyProportional hazards modelRelative riskHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Cancer preventionInternal medicineObstetricsOncologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Case-control studies have shown inverse associations between cigarette smoking and endometrial cancer risk. However, two small prospective cohort studies have not clearly supported an association. Moreover, quantitative measures of smoking have been examined infrequently. Our aim was to study the association between smoking and endometrial cancer risk in a large prospective cohort. We used proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios relating cigarette smoking to endometrial cancer risk among 70 591 women aged 40-59 years at recruitment into a randomised controlled trial of mammography screening for breast cancer. During an average of 10.6 years of follow-up (751 833 person-years), a total of 403 women were diagnosed with incident endometrial cancer. We found that a reduced endometrial cancer risk was evident only among women who currently smoked 20 cigarettes per day or more (hazard ratio=0.62, 95% CI=0.42-0.92, P for trend=0.03). There was some suggestion of an inverse association with smoking duration, but this was less clear. The association did not vary with menopausal status, relative body weight, or the use of hormone replacement therapy, but it appeared to be stronger among parous than nulliparous women. The underlying biological mechanisms of this association remain unclear.

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)0.001
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207