The risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation from North America and Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women with a BRCA1 mutation face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is unknown to what extent environmental factors modify the inherent genetic risk. If women from different countries, but with similar mutations, experience different levels of cancer risk, nongenetic risk modifiers are likely to be present. Study subjects were a cohort of 1477 women with a BRCA1 mutation, from Canada (n = 358), the United States (n = 256) and Poland (n = 863). The women were followed for a mean of 4.3 years and 130 incident cases of breast cancer were recorded. Annual cancer incidence rates were calculated, and based on these, penetrance curves were constructed for women from North America and Poland. In a Cox proportional hazards model, residence in Poland, versus North America, was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.34-0.86; p = 0.01). The risk of breast cancer to age 70 was estimated to be 49% for women from Poland and 72% for women from North America. Among women with BRCA1 mutations, the risk of breast cancer in women who reside in Poland is less than that of women who reside in North America. The reasons for the difference are unknown, but this observation suggests that environmental factors or genetic modifiers are important in determining risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".