Breast size and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elevated waist circumference and body mass index (BMI), both traditional measures of obesity, are accepted risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Girls who are obese experience earlier onset of puberty and possibly greater breast development. We sought to evaluate whether a woman's breast size in late adolescence is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adulthood. METHODS: In conjunction with the ongoing Nurses' Health Study II [corrected], we conducted a prospective cohort study involving 92,106 of the participants. We assessed the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in relation to self-reported bra cup sizes, categorized as < or = A, B, C and > or = D cups, among participants at age 20. RESULTS: The mean age of participants at baseline was 38.1 years. A total of 1844 new cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus arose at a mean age of 44.9 years during 886,443 person-years of follow-up. Relative to bra cup size < or = A, the respective age-adjusted hazard ratios (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 2.30 (1.99-2.66) for B cup, 4.32 (3.71-5.04) for C cup and 4.99 (4.12-6.05) for > or = D cup. Upon further adjustments for age at menarche, parity, physical activity, smoking status, diet, multivitamin use, family history of diabetes mellitus, BMI at age 18 and current BMI, the corresponding hazard ratios (and 95% CIs) were 1.37 (1.18-1.59) for B cup, 1.80 (1.53- 2.11) for C cup and 1.64 (1.34-2.01) for > or = D cup. The addition of waist circumference to this model minimally changed the hazard ratios (and 95% CIs): 1.32 (1.14-1.53) for B cup, 1.71 (1.46-2.01) for C cup and 1.58 (1.29-1.94) for > or = D cup. INTERPRETATION: A large bra cup size at age 20 may be a predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus in middle-aged women. Whether this relation is independent of traditional indicators of obesity remains to be determined.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".