Hormone Replacement Therapy as a Risk Factor for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: It was the aim of this study to assess the risk of lung cancer in postmenopausal women who received hormone replacement therapy (HRT). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This case-control study involves women who received medical services at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI) in Buffalo, New York, between 1982 and 1998, and who agreed to complete an epidemiological questionnaire. Participants with missing smoking data were excluded. The case group consisted of 595 women with primary lung cancer. Controls included 1,195 women, randomly selected from a pool of 5,845 eligible individuals, who received medical services at RPCI for non-neoplastic conditions; they had come to RPCI with a suspicion of neoplastic disease, but were diagnosed with neither benign nor malignant conditions. Controls were frequency matched 2:1 to cases on 5-year age intervals and exposure to smoking (ever/never). Cases and controls were comparable for age (means 61.3 and 61.0 years) and ever smoking (90%). RESULTS: There were more former smokers among the cases (67 vs. 59% in controls); cases were less likely to be high school educated, were thinner, and were less likely to report HRT use compared with controls. Overall, hormone use was associated with a significant reduction in risk of lung cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.85). Stratified analyses showed significant reductions in lung cancer risk in former smokers and women with normal to low body mass index. CONCLUSION: This study supports the hypotheses that there is a protective effect of HRT use on 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".