Anthropometric measures and epithelial ovarian cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the associations of measured anthropometric factors, including general and central adiposity and height, with ovarian cancer risk. We also investigated these associations by menopausal status and for specific histological subtypes. Among 226,798 women in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, there were 611 incident cases of primary, malignant, epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed during a mean 8.9 years of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for potential confounders. Compared to women with body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m2, obesity (BMI > or = 30 kg/m2) was associated with excess ovarian cancer risk for all women combined (HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.05-1.68; p(trend) = 0.02) and postmenopausal women (HR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.20-2.10; p(trend) = 0.001), but the association was weaker for premenopausal women (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.65-2.06; p(trend) = 0.65). Neither height or weight gain, nor BMI-adjusted measures of fat distribution assessed by waist circumference, waist-hip ratio (WHR) or hip circumference were associated with overall risk. WHR was related to increased risk of mucinous tumors (BMI-adjusted HR per 0.05 unit increment = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.00-1.38). For all women combined, no other significant associations with risk were observed for specific histological subtypes. This large, prospective study provides evidence that obesity is an important modifiable risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer, particularly among postmenopausal 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".