A pooled analysis of 10 case–control studies of melanoma and oral contraceptive use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data regarding the effects of oral contraceptive use on women's risk of melanoma have been difficult to resolve. We undertook a pooled analysis of all case-control studies of melanoma in women completed as of July 1994 for which electronic data were available on oral contraceptive use along with other melanoma risk factors such as hair colour, sun sensitivity, family history of melanoma and sun exposure. Using the original data from each investigation (a total of 2391 cases and 3199 controls), we combined the study-specific odds ratios and standard errors to obtain a pooled estimate that incorporates inter-study heterogeneity. Overall, we observed no excess risk associated with oral contraceptive use for 1 year or longer compared to never use or use for less than 1 year (pooled odds ratio (pOR)=0.86; 95% CI=0.74-1.01), and there was no evidence of heterogeneity between studies. We found no relation between melanoma incidence and duration of oral contraceptive use, age began, year of use, years since first use or last use, or specifically current oral contraceptive use. In aggregate, our findings do not suggest a major role of oral contraceptive use on women's risk of melanoma.
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 | 0.041 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".