Reproductive and Hormonal Factors, and Ovarian Cancer Risk for <i>BRCA1</i> and <i>BRCA2</i> Mutation Carriers: Results from the International <i>BRCA1/2</i> Carrier Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several reproductive and hormonal factors are known to be associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population, including parity and oral contraceptive (OC) use. However, their effect on ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has only been investigated in a small number of studies. METHODS: We used data on 2,281 BRCA1 carriers and 1,038 BRCA2 carriers from the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study to evaluate the effect of reproductive and hormonal factors on ovarian cancer risk for mutation carriers. Data were analyzed within a weighted Cox proportional hazards framework. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the risk of ovarian cancer between parous and nulliparous carriers. For parous BRCA1 mutation carriers, the risk of ovarian cancer was reduced with each additional full-term pregnancy (P trend = 0.002). BRCA1 carriers who had ever used OC were at a significantly reduced risk of developing ovarian cancer (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence intervals, 0.37-0.73; P = 0.0002) and increasing duration of OC use was associated with a reduced ovarian cancer risk (P trend = 0.0004). The protective effect of OC use for BRCA1 mutation carriers seemed to be greater among more recent users. Tubal ligation was associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence intervals, 0.22-0.80; P = 0.008). The number of ovarian cancer cases in BRCA2 mutation carriers was too small to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide further confirmation that OC use, number of full-term pregnancies, and tubal ligation are associated with ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers to a similar relative extent as in the general population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".