Short‐term risk of cancer among women with previous gestational diabetes: a population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between gestational diabetes (GDM) and incidence of cancer in women within the first decade postpartum. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study compared the risk of cancer in women with GDM with that of a matched control group comprising pregnant women without diabetes. We included women from Ontario, Canada aged 20-50 years with no history of cancer who had given birth between 1995 and 2008 (N = 149 049). Women with GDM (N = 49 684) were matched on age and year of giving birth, in a ratio of 1:2, to pregnant women without diabetes (N = 99 365). RESULTS: Over a median 8-year follow-up, there were a total of 2927 (1.5%) cancers. After adjustment for covariates, we found no significant difference in overall risk of cancer between women with GDM and matched control subjects; however, GDM was associated with a significantly greater risk of thyroid cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.05, 1.46) and a significantly lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.75, 0.98) compared with matched control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This large population-based study did not find a greater risk of cancers among women with GDM during the first decade postpartum; however, GDM was associated with a higher risk of thyroid cancer and a lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".