MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P6-09-09: Dual Estrogen Effects on Breast Cancer: Endogenous Estrogen Stimulates, Exogenous Estrogen Protects. Further Investigation of Estrogen Chemoprevention Is Warranted

2010· article· en· W2081781900 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Ragaz, Kenneth S. Wilson, Giulia M. Muraca, J Budlovský, Juergen Froehlich

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrogenMedicineBreast cancerTamoxifenInternal medicineOophorectomyRaloxifeneSelective estrogen receptor modulatorProgestinEstrogen receptorEndocrinologyHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)CancerOncologyHysterectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Until the randomized Women Healths Initiative [WHI] trials 1,2, most hormone replacement therapy (HRT) studies showed an association of HRT with higher BrCa risk. However, our recent reviews of the WHI trials suggested that Estrogen alone can be protective while HRT based on Estrogen + Progestin can be carcinogenic 3, 4. In this analysis, we expand this concept to examine the difference between “Exogenous” Estrogen — delivered as part of HRT, versus “Endogenous” Estrogen — i.e. E produced by human tissues. Rationale 1: Endogenous E is carcinogenic. Reducing E levels through oophorectomy, selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) or with aromatase inhibition is effective at all stages of oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer and is significantly protective against BrCa in high risk women 5. Rationale 2: Exogenous E Protective: Updates of the WHI trial 2 [women with hysterectomy, randomized to E alone versus Placebo, 1,2 ] with analyses according to prior history of Benign Breast Disease (PH BrD); a first degree relative with BrCa (PH 1st Rel BrCa); or prior HRT use, show: Results of the WHI trial 2 CONCLUSIONS These data are compatible with a dual estrogen effect where Exogenous Estrogen is protective, in contrast to the carcinogenic impact of Endogenous Estrogen. The protective effect of Estrogen is comparable in magnitude to that reported with tamoxifen in high risk women. Based on these data, we propose that: 1. In selected women - [i.e. the majority of the WHI HRT trial 2 participants, 71.5 - 80%] - the use of HRT based on Estrogens alone may be appropriate to manage menopausal symptoms, as it is associated with a significant reduction of BrCa rates. 2. The use of Exogenous Estrogen in chemoprevention merits validation, with the optimum Estrogen regimen determination [type of Estrogens; dose; mode of delivery, etc.] high priority. References: 1. WHI working Group Reports, JAMA 2002; 2004; 2006 2. JCO, June 2010; 16; 2690-97 3. Cancer Res 2009; 69; # 908 4. HRT: A Critical Review. In: Management of Breast Diseases, 2010; Springer, New York, pp, 451-473. 5. Diseases of Breast, the 3rd Edition, 2005 Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-09.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.011

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207