MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079503163 · doi:10.1002/ijc.22543

Reproductive and hormonal factors and risk of lung cancer in women: A prospective cohort study

2007· article· en· W2079503163 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerHazard ratioBreast cancerProportional hazards modelCancerProspective cohort studyCohort studyObstetricsRelative riskGynecologyConfidence intervalCohortDemographyCancer registryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several lines of evidence suggest that endocrine factors may play a role in the development of lung cancer, but the evidence is limited and inconsistent. We investigated the association of reproductive and hormonal factors with risk of lung cancer in the National Breast Screening Study, which included 89,835 Canadian women aged 40-59 years at recruitment between 1980 and 1985. Linkages to national cancer and mortality databases provided data on cancer incidence and deaths from all causes, respectively, with follow-up ending between 1998 and 2000. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the association between hormonal factors and lung cancer. During a mean of 16.4 years of follow-up, we observed 750 incident lung cancer cases. After adjustment for covariates, parous women were not at increased risk of lung cancer (HR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.94-1.47) relative to nulliparous women; however, there was a modest increase in risk with increasing parity, reaching a HR of 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.88 in women who had 5 or more live births (p for trend 0.02). Among parous women, age at first live birth was inversely associated with risk. Women who had their first live birth at age 30 or older were at reduced risk relative to women who had their first live birth below age 23 (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93, p for trend 0.004). These associations did not differ by age at enrollment (40-49 vs. 50-59 years old), but were somewhat strengthened when attention was restricted to never smokers. Ever use of exogenous hormones showed little association with lung cancer risk; however, long-term users of hormone replacement therapy were at slightly increased risk. Our results add to the limited existing evidence that certain reproductive and hormonal factors may be associated with lung cancer risk in women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.336 · 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