Association between Components of the Insulin-Like Growth Factor System and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Components of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system have been associated with several cancers, but very few studies are available for ovarian cancer. METHODS: A case-control study conducted between 1999 and 2003 in Italy, including a total of 59 women with incident, histologically confirmed ovarian cancer and 108 controls admitted to the same hospital network as cases, for acute non-neoplastic diseases. All subjects were interviewed using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, the multivariate odds ratios for the highest versus the lowest tertile of various IGF components were 0.6 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.2-1.4) for free IGF-I, 0.4 (CI: 0.1-1.5) for total IGF-I, 2.6 (CI: 0.9-6.9) for IGF-binding protein (IGFBP)-1, and 0.2 (CI: 0.0-0.6) for IGFBP-3. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a protective role of IGFBP-3 and a positive association of IGFBP-1 with ovarian cancer. The complex role of the IGF system in ovarian carcinogenesis deserves further clarification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".