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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.053
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