MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095392160 · doi:10.1158/1940-6207.prev-11-a4

Abstract A4: C-peptide, mammographic density, and risk of invasive breast cancer

2011· article· en· W2095392160 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas P. Ahern, Susan E. Hankinson, Walter C. Willett, Michaël Pollak, A. Heather Eliassen, Rulla M. Tamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Prevention Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineMammographyLogistic regressionInternal medicineOdds ratioIncidence (geometry)OncologyCancerCase-control studyRisk factors for breast cancerMenarcheNurses' Health StudyEndocrinologyGynecologyProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives: C-peptide, a stable marker of insulin secretion, has been associated with breast cancer incidence in some, but not all, earlier studies. Recent evidence links plasma C-peptide levels with dietary patterns, making C-peptide a potentially modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. Mammographic measures of breast density (i.e., dense area, non-dense area, and percent dense area) are associated with breast cancer risk independently of established risk factors, yet the relationship between C-peptide and these density parameters has not been thoroughly studied. We estimated the associations between plasma C-peptide levels, measures of mammographic density, and subsequent breast cancer risk among non-diabetic participants in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and Nurses' Health Study II (NHS2) cohorts. Methods: C-peptide concentrations were assayed by ELISA from prospectively collected plasma samples of non-diabetic breast cancer cases and controls nested in the NHS (762 cases, 1,146 controls) and the NHS2 (323 cases, 642 controls). C-peptide levels were defined as batch-specific quintiles, using cutpoints derived from controls. Associations between C-peptide and breast density measures were estimated among controls with available mammograms, and calculated as the difference in means between quintiles of C-peptide level using general linear models adjusted for age, menopausal status, age at menarche, alcohol consumption, BMI, and waist-to-hip circumference ratio. We used conditional logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios associating quintile of C-peptide concentration with breast cancer incidence while adjusting for established breast cancer risk factors, with and without further adjustment for breast density. Incidence associations were modeled separately in the two cohorts, evaluated for homogeneity, and pooled by inverse-variance weighting. Results: The association between C-peptide and mammographic breast density was measured in 1,272 breast cancer controls merged from both cohorts. Compared with subjects in the first quintile, subjects in the highest C-peptide quintile had a larger area of non-dense tissue (difference in adjusted means = 8.3 cm2, 95% CI: −4.8 cm2, 21 cm2), a smaller area of dense tissue (difference in adjusted means = −5.1 cm2, 95% CI: −13 cm2, 3.1 cm2), and a lower percent dense area (difference in adjusted means = −3.4%, 95% CI: −7.6%, 0.7%). C-peptide level was strongly associated with BMI (difference in mean BMI, highest vs. lowest quintile = 5.6, 95% CI: 4.8, 6.4). In the combined analysis, C-peptide was positively associated with breast cancer incidence in models adjusted for age, menopausal status, postmenopausal hormone use, BMI, age at first birth, age at menarche, alcohol consumption, and family history of breast cancer (pooled OR, highest vs. lowest quintile = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.84). The association strengthened following simultaneous adjustment for dense and non-dense breast area (pooled OR, highest vs. lowest quintile = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.38). Incidence associations were similar within strata of menopausal status. Conclusions: C-peptide may be modestly associated with larger non-dense area in the breast (and with lower percent dense area by extension). C-peptide was positively associated with breast cancer risk, with and without adjustment for breast density measures. Our results suggest that C-peptide is a biomarker of elevated breast cancer risk that does not act through an effect on breast density. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2011;4(10 Suppl):A4.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Prevention ResearchSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207