A prospective cohort study of cigarette smoking and the risk of endometrial cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".