MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Active Smoking and Breast Cancer Risk: Synthesis of Current Evidence Implicates a Risk

2009· article· en· W2051290931 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth C. Johnson, J. M. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerTobacco smokeMeta-analysisCohort studyOncologyRelative riskCancerEnvironmental healthCohortInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ISEE-0730 Background and Objective: Three authoritative reviews of active smoking and breast cancer have been published since the year 2000, but only considered data published up until 2002. They found suggestive but conflicting evidence, as has been the case historically. Since 2002, at least 40 more original epidemiologic studies have been published on smoking and breast cancer, including two major reports on ETS and breast cancer and at least six meta-analyses. The objective was to provide an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence regarding ETS, active smoking and breast cancer risk. Methods: Assessment of the weight of evidence from epidemiologic studies, meta-analyses, toxicological studies and current understanding of biologic mechanisms. Results: Among women who have never smoked, three meta-analyses have found increases of 60 to 70% for breast cancer risk among premenopausal/women under age 50 with regular, long-term exposure to ETS. Among smokers, recent studies, in particular several cohort studies, have added to the weight of evidence suggesting 10–30% increases in risk associated with higher pack-years of smoking, longer duration of smoking, smoking before first full-term pregnancy and early age of smoking commencement. Three recent meta-analyses have found 35% to 50% increases in breast cancer risk for long-term smokers with N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) slow acetylation genotypes. The most recent and thorough of these analyses included pooling of individual data from 9 studies and an associated meta-analysis of 13 studies and identified relative risks among women with NAT2 slow acetylator genotype of 1.44 (95% CI 1.23–1.68) and 1.49 (95% CI 1.08–2.04), respectively, associated with the highest categories of pack-years of smoking. Conclusions: Research published since 2002 has substantially strengthened the weight of evidence in support of an increased risk of breast cancer among women who smoke and increased risk for long-term exposure to ETS among never-smokers.

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 score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207