Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir The conclusion of the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors and Breast Cancer, 2002) that cigarette smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer may not be warranted. Several recent studies of breast cancer risk suggest that a positive association with smoking may emerge 30–40 years after commencement (Terry and Rohan, 2002), particularly among chronic heavy smokers. There is also evidence to suggest that smoking prior to a first full-term pregnancy may be an important exposure (Russo et al, 1982; Band et al, 2002; Terry and Rohan, 2002). In addition, an increasing number of studies suggest that a possitive association between smoking and breast cancer risk may be stronger among (or limited to) women with certain genotypes (Terry and Rohan, 2002). To what extent the Collaborative Group's examination of smoking as ‘ever vs never’ or ‘current vs never’ could account for such possible time-dependent or genetic associations is unclear. The possibility of an association between cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk among certain groups of women should not be ruled out based solely on the Collaborative Group's analyses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".