Black Cohosh and Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many women use black cohosh as a natural treatment for menopausal symptoms. However, controversy exists around safety in breast cancer, because of its purported estrogenic activity. We conducted a systematic review of black cohosh use in women with or at risk of breast cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and AMED from inception to July 2012 and October 2012 for human interventional or observational data pertaining to the safety and efficacy of black cohosh in patients with or at risk of breast cancer, including an assessment of the effect of black cohosh on estrogen responsive tissues. RESULTS: Of 450 records, we included 26 articles: 14 randomized controlled trials, 7 uncontrolled trials, and 5 observational studies.The evidence on efficacy for ho t flashes is divided, with some benefits seen when compared with baseline, but not when compared with placebo. Two observational studies found no association between black cohosh and risk of breast cancer, whereas 2 studies reported significant reductions in risk of primary breast cancer among postmenopausal women (adjusted odds ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.27-0.82), and risk of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval = 0.63-0.89). Seventeen trials showed no significant impact on circulating hormone levels or proliferation in estrogen responsive tissues. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support an association between black cohosh and increased risk of breast cancer. There is a lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of black cohosh for reduction of hot flashes in breast cancer patients. Given conflicting but promising results, and apparent safety, further research is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".