A Pilot Study Comparing the Effect of Flaxseed, Aromatase Inhibitor, and the Combination on Breast Tumor Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of complementary approaches is common among breast cancer survivors. Potential interactions between aromatase inhibitors (AI) and high phytoestrogen foods, such as flaxseed (FS), are not often described. We conducted a pilot 2 × 2 factorial, randomized intervention study between tumor biopsy and resection, in 24 postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer, to assess the effects of FS and anastrozole, and possible interactions between them, on serum steroid hormone and tumor-related characteristics associated with long-term survival (Roswell Park Cancer Institute, 2007-2010). The effect of each treatment vs. placebo on outcomes was determined by linear regression adjusting for pretreatment measure, stage, and grade. Although not statistically significant, mean ERβ expression was approximately 40% lower from pre- to postintervention in the FS + AI group only. We observed a statistically significant negative association (β ± SE -0.3 ± 0.1; P = 0.03) for androstenedione in the FS + AI group vs. placebo and for DHEA with AI treatment (β ± SE -1.6 ± 0.6; P = 0.009). Enterolactone excretion was much lower in the FS + AI group compared to the FS group. Our results do not support strong effects of FS on AI activity for selected breast tumor characteristics or serum steroid hormone levels but suggest AI therapy might reduce the production of circulating mammalian lignans from FS.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".