MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032912555 · doi:10.1002/pds.1233

Risk of breast cancer in association with exposure to two different groups of tricyclic antidepressants

2006· article· en· W2032912555 on OpenAlexaff
Hani Tamim, Jean‐François Boivin, James A. Hanley, MaryRose Stang, Jean‐Paul Collet

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan HealthJewish General HospitalMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerTricyclicEpidemiologyInternal medicineCancerPopulationCase-control studyOncologyGynecologyEnvironmental healthPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In 2002, we reported an epidemiological study in which we found that some tricyclic antidepressants (identified as genotoxic in Drosophila Melanogaster) were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, when exposure took place 11-15 years before the date of diagnosis. The implications of the results found lead us to carry out a separate case-control study, using the same source population, to validate the conclusions drawn from our previous study. METHODS: We accrued 7330 breast cancer cases, diagnosed between 1981 and 2000, and 29 320 controls matched on age and time. RESULTS: The association between exposure to genotoxic TCAs 11-15 years before diagnosis and the risk of breast cancer development was much weaker, as compared to what was reported in our previous study. The relative risk of breast cancer in women exposed to high doses of genotoxic TCAs 11-15 years before diagnosis was 1.17 (95%CI: 0.79-1.74), while in women exposed to high levels of non-genotoxic TCAs during the same period it was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.61-1.48). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we did not find supporting evidence for an increased risk of breast cancer among women exposed to TCAs up to 20 years in the past.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug SafetySame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207