Reproductive and hormonal factors and risk of lung cancer in women: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".