Effect of the Women's Health Initiative Study Publication on Hormone Replacement Therapy Use among Women Who Have Undergone <i>BRCA1/2</i> Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the publication, in July 2002, of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study, use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has decreased substantially in the general population. However, little is known about the effect of WHI study results on HRT use among women at high risk of breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to compare HRT use, prepublication versus postpublication of the WHI study, among women tested for BRCA1/2 mutations. METHODS: Participants were >35 years of age and had received their result of genetic testing (delivered within the interdisciplinary research program Interdisciplinary Health Research International Team on Breast Cancer Susceptibility), no later than February 28, 2005. HRT use was reported in self-administered questionnaires, 1 year after result disclosure. Women returning their questionnaire before July 17, 2002 were classified as pre-WHI, whereas those returning it after October 15, 2002 comprised the post-WHI group. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-seven women (199 and 258 in the pre-WIH and post-WHI groups, respectively) were included in this analysis. Globally, there was no difference in HRT use between prepublication and postpublication of the WHI study (8% and 11%, respectively; prevalence ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.28). However, noncarriers of the familial mutation were less likely to use HRT after publication of the WHI study results (9%) than before (21%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, HRT use among women tested for BRCA1/2 mutations is relatively low and apparently uninfluenced by the WHI study findings. However, the HRT use reduction among noncarriers is similar to that of women in the general population and consistent with the Canadian Cancer Society's recent HRT use recommendations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".