Intrauterine devices and endometrial cancer risk: A pooled analysis of the <scp>E</scp>pidemiology of <scp>E</scp>ndometrial <scp>C</scp>ancer <scp>C</scp>onsortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrauterine devices (IUDs), long-acting and reversible contraceptives, induce a number of immunological and biochemical changes in the uterine environment that could affect endometrial cancer (EC) risk. We addressed this relationship through a pooled analysis of data collected in the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium. We combined individual-level data from 4 cohort and 14 case-control studies, in total 8,801 EC cases and 15,357 controls. Using multivariable logistic regression, we estimated pooled odds ratios (pooled-ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for EC risk associated with ever use, type of device, ages at first and last use, duration of use and time since last use, stratified by study and adjusted for confounders. Ever use of IUDs was inversely related to EC risk (pooled-OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.74-0.90). Compared with never use, reduced risk of EC was observed for inert IUDs (pooled-OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.58-0.82), older age at first use (≥ 35 years pooled-OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.43-0.67), older age at last use (≥ 45 years pooled-OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.50-0.72), longer duration of use (≥ 10 years pooled-OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.52-0.71) and recent use (within 1 year of study entry pooled-OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.30-0.49). Future studies are needed to assess the respective roles of detection biases and biologic effects related to foreign body responses in the endometrium, heavier bleeding (and increased clearance of carcinogenic cells) and localized hormonal changes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".