Intact and total insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) levels in relation to breast cancer risk factors: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and its main binding protein (IGFBP-3) have been associated with breast cancer risk among premenopausal women. However, associations of IGFBP-3 levels with breast cancer risk have been inconsistent, possibly due to the different predominant forms of circulating IGFBP-3 (intact versus fragmented) that were measured in these studies. Here, we examine the association of breast cancer risk factors with intact and total IGFBP-3 levels. METHODS: This cross-sectional study includes 737 premenopausal women recruited at screening mammography. Plasma intact and total IGFBP-3 and IGF-I levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay methods. Percent and absolute breast density were estimated using a computer-assisted method. The associations were evaluated using generalized linear models and Pearson (r) or Spearman (rs) partial correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Means +/- standard deviations of intact and total IGFBP-3 levels (ng/mL) were 1,044 +/- 234 and 4,806 +/- 910, respectively. Intact and total IGFBP-3 levels were correlated with age and smoking. Levels of intact IGFBP-3 were negatively correlated with waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) (r = -0.128; P = 0.0005), parity (rs = -0.078; P = 0.04), and alcohol intake (r = -0.137; P = 0.0002) and positively correlated with energy intake (r = 0.075; P = 0.04). In contrast, total IGFBP-3 levels were positively correlated with WHR (r = 0.115; P = 0.002), parity (rs = 0.089; P = 0.02), body mass index (BMI) (r = 0.115; P = 0.002), physical activity (r = 0.118; P = 0.002), and IGF-I levels (r = 0.588; P < 0.0001) and negatively correlated with percent or absolute breast density (r = -0.095; P = 0.01 and r = -0.075; P = 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our data show that associations of some breast cancer risk factors with intact levels of IGFBP-3 are different from those with total (intact and fragmented) IGFBP-3 levels. These findings suggest that different molecular forms of IGFBP-3 may bear different relations to premenopausal breast cancer risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".