MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029474098 · doi:10.1289/ehp.02110s1119

Perspectives on the chemical etiology of breast cancer.

2002· review· en· W2029474098 on OpenAlexaff
Lillian S. DeBruin, P. David Josephy

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerCarcinogenTobacco smokeHeterocyclic amineMedicineBreast milkEnvironmental healthPhysiologyRisk factors for breast cancerCancerAlcohol consumptionChemistryInternal medicineAlcoholBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple factors, known and unknown, contribute to human breast cancer. Hereditary, hormonal, and reproductive factors are associated with risk of breast cancer. Environmental agents, including chemical carcinogens, are modifiable risk factors to which over 70% of breast cancers have been attributed. Polymorphisms of drug-metabolizing enzymes may influence risk of breast cancer from environmental chemicals, dietary agents, and endogenous steroids. The environmental factors discussed in this review include pollutants, occupational exposures, tobacco smoke, alcohol, and diet. Aromatic amines are discussed as potential mammary carcinogens, with a focus on heterocyclic amine food pyrolysis products. These compounds are excreted into the urine after consumption of meals containing cooked meats and have recently been detected in the breast milk of lactating 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.010

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations87
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207