Breast Cancer Incidence and Hormone Replacement Therapy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2002, results of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial indicated that the long-term risks of combined estrogen and progestin hormone replacement therapy outweighed the health benefits for postmenopausal women. The resulting decline in use of hormone replacement therapy was followed by concurrent decreases in breast cancer incidence in several countries. The aim of the current study was to determine whether similar declines occurred in Canada. METHODS: Data on prescriptions for hormone therapy were obtained from a national registry of pharmacy-filled prescriptions to confirm the reported trend in use of hormone replacement therapy among approximately 1200 women aged 50-69 years who participated in the National Population Health Survey between 1996 and 2006 and whose data were extrapolated to the Canadian female population. Age-standardized incidence rates for breast cancer were obtained from the population-based Canadian Cancer Registry for the same period, and mammography rates were obtained from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Joinpoint regression was used to examine changes in trends in the use of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer incidence. RESULTS: A reduced frequency of use of hormone replacement therapy was reflected in the decrease in dispensed hormone therapy prescriptions after 2002. The largest drop in use of combined hormone replacement therapy (from 12.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.1% to 14.2%, to 4.9%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 6.8%, of all women) occurred between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004, among women aged 50-69 years. This drop occurred concurrently with a 9.6% decline in the incidence rate of breast cancer (from 296.3 per 100,000 women, 95% CI = 290.8 to 300.5 per 100,000 women, in 2002 to 268.0 per 100,000 women, 95% CI = 263.3 to 273.5 per 100,000 women, in 2004). Mammography rates were stable at 72% over the same period. CONCLUSION: During the period 2002-2004, there was a link between the declines in the use of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer incidence among Canadian women aged 50-69 years, in the absence of any change in mammography rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".