Tobacco and Alcohol in Relation to Male Breast Cancer: An Analysis of the Male Breast Cancer Pooling Project Consortium
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The etiology of male breast cancer is poorly understood, partly due to its relative rarity. Although tobacco and alcohol exposures are known carcinogens, their association with male breast cancer risk remains ill-defined. METHODS: The Male Breast Cancer Pooling Project consortium provided 2,378 cases and 51,959 controls for analysis from 10 case-control and 10 cohort studies. Individual participant data were harmonized and pooled. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate study design-specific (case-control/cohort) ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI), which were then combined using fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Cigarette smoking status, smoking pack-years, duration, intensity, and age at initiation were not associated with male breast cancer risk. Relations with cigar and pipe smoking, tobacco chewing, and snuff use were also null. Recent alcohol consumption and average grams of alcohol consumed per day were also not associated with risk; only one subanalysis of very high recent alcohol consumption (>60 g/day) was tentatively associated with male breast cancer (ORunexposed referent = 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.71; OR>0-<7 g/day referent = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04-1.77). Specific alcoholic beverage types were not associated with male breast cancer. Relations were not altered when stratified by age or body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of the Male Breast Cancer Pooling Project, we found little evidence that tobacco and alcohol exposures were associated with risk of male breast cancer. IMPACT: Tobacco and alcohol do not appear to be carcinogenic for male breast cancer. Future studies should aim to assess these exposures in relation to subtypes of male breast cancer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it