MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039819173 · doi:10.1002/ijc.22578

Serum levels of C‐peptide, IGFBP‐1 and IGFBP‐2 and endometrial cancer risk; Results from the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition

2007· article· en· W2039819173 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Ε. Cust, Naomi E. Allen, Sabina Rinaldi, Laure Dossus, Christine M. Friedenreich, Anja Olsen, Anne Tjønneland, Kim Overvad, Françoise Clavel‐Chapelon, Marie‐Christine Boutron‐Ruault, Jakob Linseisen, Jenny Chang‐Claude, Heiner Boeing, Mandy Schulz, Vassiliki Benetou, Antonia Trichopoulou, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Domenico Palli, Franco Berrino, ­Rosario ­Tumino, Amalia Mattiello, Paolo Vineis, J. Ramón Quirós, Antonio Agudo, María‐José Sánchez, Nerea Larrañaga, Carmen Navarro, Eva Ardanáz, H. Bas Bueno‐de‐Mesquita, Petra H. Peeters, Carla H. van Gils, Sheila Bingham, Kay‐Tee Khaw, Tim Key, Nadia Slimani, Elio Ríboli, Rudolf Kaaks

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer Foundation
FundersChangchun University of Science and TechnologyCancer Institute NSW
KeywordsMedicineQuartileInternal medicineConfidence intervalEndometrial cancerProspective cohort studyRelative riskEuropean Prospective Investigation into Cancer and NutritionCase-control studyNested case-control studyCancerEndocrinologyGynecologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, to examine the associations between prediagnostic serum concentrations of C-peptide, insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP)-1 and IGFBP-2, and endometrial cancer risk. Among pre- and post-menopausal women, who were not currently using exogenous hormones, 286 women developed incident endometrial cancer during an average 5.1 years follow-up. Using risk set sampling, 555 matched control subjects were selected. In conditional logistic regression models adjusted for matching factors only, endometrial cancer risk increased with increasing serum levels of C-peptide (relative risks (RR) for the top vs. bottom quartile = 2.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-3.41], p(trend) = 0.001, and decreasing serum levels of IGFBP-2 (RR for the top vs. bottom quartile = 0.56 [95% CI 0.35-0.90], p(trend) = 0.03, but was not significantly associated with IGFBP-1 levels (RR for the top vs. bottom quartile = 0.76 [95% CI 0.47-1.21], p(trend) = 0.25). In BMI-adjusted models, only the C-peptide association remained marginally statistically significant (RR for the top vs. bottom quartile = 1.56 [95% CI 0.94-2.57], p(trend) = 0.05 for C-peptide; 0.84 [95% CI 0.50-1.40], p(trend) = 0.74 for IGFBP-2; and 1.08 [95% CI 0.65-1.78], p(trend) = 0.86 for IGFBP-1 levels). These associations were stronger among nonfasting women (< or =< or =6 hr since last meal; 63% of subjects) but were not evident among fasting women, although the interactions were not statistically significant. The C-peptide-risk association was substantially attenuated after adjustment for free estradiol in postmenopausal women (RR for the top vs. bottom quartile = 1.28 [95% CI 0.67-2.45], p(trend) = 0.42. Our results provide modest support to the hypothesis that hyperinsulinaemia is a risk factor for endometrial 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 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)0.001
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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations103
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207