MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019351877 · doi:10.1186/1617-9625-5-4

Age of smoking initiation and risk of breast cancer in a sample of Ontario women

2009· article· en· W2019351877 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erin L. Young, Scott T. Leatherdale, Margaret Sloan, Nancy Kreiger, Andriana Barisic

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Induced Diseases · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioUniversity of WaterlooPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsAtlantaHuman servicesMedicineHealth promotionSurgeon generalFamily medicineDisease controlBreast cancerHealth psychologyPublic healthCancer preventionEnvironmental healthGerontologyCancerNursingPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between time of smoking initiation and both the independent and joint effects of active and passive tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of breast cancer in a sample of Ontario women. METHODS: Data from two large population-based case-control studies conducted among Ontario women aged 25-75 years were combined for analysis (n = 12,768). RESULTS: Women who had ever smoked and were exposed to passive smoke had a significant increased risk of breast cancer (OR 1.13, 95%CI 1.01-1.25). A significant increased risk was also observed among women who initiated smoking: at age 26 or older (OR 1.26, 95%CI 1.03-1.55); more than five years from menarche (OR 1.26, 95%CI 1.12-1.42); and, after their first live birth (OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.02-1.52). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that women who initiate smoking at an older age are at an increased risk of breast cancer.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco Induced DiseasesSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207