Use of Dietary Supplements Among Women at High Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) Tested for Cancer Susceptibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although use of dietary supplements among women with breast cancer is high, use among women at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is unknown. This study assesses the prevalence of use of dietary supplements and identifies characteristics associated with use among women at high risk of HBOC who underwent genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Participants were 303 women who underwent BRCA1/2 testing as part of Interdisciplinary Health Research International Team on Breast Cancer Susceptibility. Dietary supplements use was measured 12 mo post-disclosure. Potential determinants of use included personal cancer history, test result, psychological distress, cancer genetics knowledge, and health-related behaviors. Globally, 51% of participants used at least one dietary supplement. Calcium (26%), multivitamins (17%), vitamins D (14%), E (12%), and C (10%) were most frequently reported. Women > or = 50 yr were more likely to be using dietary supplements (P < 0.0001). Women with an inconclusive test result were more likely to use mineral supplements than noncarriers [odds ratio (OR) = 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.3-5.3]. Cigarette smoking was negatively associated with use of vitamin supplements (OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.1-0.7). Use of dietary supplements among women at high risk of HBOC who underwent BRCA1/2 testing is as frequent as use among patients with other types of tumors or use among individuals from 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".