MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088466700 · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2008.105825

Plasma Insulinlike Growth Factor 1 and Binding-Protein 3 and Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Women: A Prospective Study

2008· article· en· W2088466700 on OpenAlexaff
John H. Page, Jing Ma, Michaël Pollak, JoAnn E. Manson, Susan E. Hankinson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthDepartment of Health and Human Services, State Government of VictoriaAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineIGFBP3Internal medicineProspective cohort studyBody mass indexQuartileMyocardial infarctionOdds ratioRisk factorEndocrinologyConfidence intervalGrowth factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate relationships between plasma concentrations of insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF1) and insulinlike growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP3) and subsequent myocardial infarction (MI) in women. METHODS: We used case-control sampling to select study participants from women who had already been selected for inclusion in the prospective Nurses' Health Study cohort. Blood samples were collected from 32 826 women in 1989-1990. During the follow-up period from sample collection through June 1998, MI (fatal and nonfatal) was diagnosed in 245 women. Cases were matched to controls 1:2 by age, cigarette-smoking status, and month and fasting status at the time of blood collection. Conditional logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders (menopausal status, parental history of MI, postmenopausal hormone use, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, aspirin use, alcohol use, body mass index, and physical activity). RESULTS: Multivariable adjusted analyses did not reveal a statistically significant linear relationship between IGF1 or IGFBP3 concentrations or their molar ratio and risk of MI. Women in the highest IGF1 quartile had a multivariable-adjusted rate ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 0.79, 2.72; P for trend = 0.46) for MI, compared with those in the lowest. The corresponding rate ratios (95% CI) for IGFBP3 and the IGF1:IGFBP3 mol/L ratio were 1.24 (0.71, 2.17) and 1.29 (0.70, 2.37), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a monotonic relationship between IGF1 or IGFBP3 and MI among predominantly postmenopausal women. Future studies are warranted to evaluate these relationships in other demographic groups including younger 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207