Anthropometric Measures and Risk of Ovarian Cancer Among <i>BRCA1</i> and <i>BRCA2</i> Mutation Carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies conducted among women in the general population suggest that various anthropometric measures, including height and weight, may be associated with the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Whether such an association exists among women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has not been evaluated. Thus, we investigated the association between height, weight, changes in body weight, and BMI, and the risk of developing ovarian cancer among 938 women carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. A matched case-control study was conducted in 469 pairs of women carrying a deleterious mutation in either BRCA1 (n = 403 pairs) or BRCA2 (n = 66 pairs). Information about height and weight at ages 18, 30, and 40 was collected from a questionnaire routinely administered to women during the course of genetic counseling. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association between these body size measures and the risk of ovarian cancer. Height, weight, and BMI were not associated with the risk of ovarian cancer (P-trend ≥ 0.15). Also, there was no association between changes in body weight between ages 18-30, or ages 30-40, or ages 18-40 and the risk of ovarian cancer (P-trend ≥ 0.28). The results from this study suggest that height, weight, or weight gain do not influence the risk of ovarian cancer among carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".