MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072144889 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-04-0561

Circulating Levels of Insulin-like Growth Factors, their Binding Proteins, and Breast Cancer Risk

2005· article· en· W2072144889 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Schernhammer, Jeff M.P. Holly, Michaël Pollak, Susan E. Hankinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineConfidence intervalInternal medicineRelative riskProspective cohort studyOncologyLogistic regressionInsulin-like growth factor-binding proteinCase-control studyCancerRisk factorInsulin-like growth factorNested case-control studyGynecologyEndocrinologyGrowth factorReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Earlier data support the hypothesis that the relation between circulating insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) levels and breast cancer risk differs by menopausal status. The strong association of IGF-I with height in childhood and weak or no association between adult levels and adult height also suggest that IGF levels in young women may better reflect an exposure time period of importance to breast cancer. Few studies have assessed IGF binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1) or free IGF and breast cancer risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a large case-control study nested within the prospective Nurses' Health Study. Plasma concentrations of IGF-I, free IGF, IGFBP-3, and IGFBP-1 were measured in blood samples collected in 1989 to 1990. Eight hundred women were identified who had a diagnosis of invasive or in situ breast cancer after blood collection, up to 1998, 27% of whom were premenopausal at blood collection. To those 800 women, one to two controls were age-matched for a total of 1,129 controls. We used logistic regression models to estimate the relative risk (RR) of breast cancer associated with IGF levels. FINDINGS: Among postmenopausal women, neither IGF-I, IGFBP-3, IGFBP-1, nor free IGF was associated with breast cancer risk [RRs, top versus bottom quintile: IGF-I, 1.0; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.7-1.4; IGFBP-3, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.1; IGFBP-1, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5; and free IGF, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4]. Among premenopausal women, IGFBP-3, IGFBP-1, and free IGF similarly were not associated with breast cancer risk (RRs, top versus bottom quintile: IGFBP-3, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-2.3; IGFBP-1, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8-3.0; and free IGF, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-2.1). Higher IGF-I plasma levels, however, were associated with a modestly elevated breast cancer risk (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.6) among the premenopausal women, with a stronger association among premenopausal women ages < or =50 (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-4.3); further adjustment for IGFBP-3 did not greatly change these estimates. INTERPRETATION: Circulating IGF-I levels seem to be modestly associated with breast cancer risk among premenopausal women, but not among postmenopausal women. IGFBP-3, IGFBP-1, and free IGF are not associated with breast cancer risk in either premenopausal or postmenopausal women in this cohort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations182
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207