Risk of endometrial cancer in relationship to cigarette smoking: Results from the EPIC study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current epidemiologic evidence indicates that cigarette smoking reduces the risk of endometrial cancer. We examined data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort to analyze further aspects of the smoking-endometrial cancer relationship, such as possible modifying effects of menopausal status, HRT use, BMI and parity. In a total of 249,986 women with smoking exposure and menopausal status information, 619 incident endometrial cancer cases were identified during 1.56 million person-years of follow-up. Among postmenopausal women, the hazard ratio (HR) for current smokers versus never smokers was 0.70 (95% CI = 0.53-0.93), while it was 1.75 (95% CI = 1.13-2.70) among premenopausal women at recruitment. After adjustment for risk factors, the HR for postmenopausal women was slightly attenuated to 0.78 (95% CI = 0.59-1.03). No heterogeneity of effect was observed with HRT use or BMI. Among premenopausal women, current smokers of more than 15 cigarettes per day or who smoked for 30 years or more at the time of recruitment had a more than 2-fold increased risk of endometrial cancer compared to never smokers (HR = 2.54; 95% CI = 1.47-4.38 and HR = 2.23; 95% CI = 1.04-4.77, respectively). Past smoking was not associated with endometrial cancer risk, either among pre- or postmenopausal women. In this prospective study, we observed an increased risk of endometrial cancer with cigarette smoking in premenopausal women. The reduction of endometrial cancer risk observed among postmenopausal women does not have direct public health relevance since cigarette smoking is the main known risk factor for 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".