MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133036705 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djn474

Response: Re: Hormone Therapy and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers

2009· article· en· W2133036705 on OpenAlexaff
Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerOncologyHormone therapyInternal medicineMedicineMutationCancer researchCancerBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The model proposed by Eisinger and Huiart ( 1 ) is intriguing but is complex and will prove difficult to confirm. We should remember that the modification of the effect of ovarian hormones on cancer risk by age of exposure is not restricted to breast cancer or to women at high risk for the disease. For example, oral contraceptives are associated with a reduced risk of endometrial cancer, but estrogen hormone replacement therapy is a risk factor. Oral contraceptives are also associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but again hormone replacement is a risk factor ( 2 ). At least three possible explanations exist for these relationships: 1) different drugs and different doses, 2) different effects of exogenous hormones in women with and without endogenous circulating estrogens, and 3) age-specific effects, that is, hormone exposure is associated with latent and prolonged reduced risk in young women but with increased short-term risk in older women. However, regarding the first point, the formulations for oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapies are actually more similar than dissimilar, and the associations of oral contraceptives with reduced cancer risk do not appear to differ by formulation ( 3 ). Regarding the second point, the study of young women with early surgical menopause would be informative. Regarding the third point, if estrogen exposure were to advance the clinical presentation of a preexisting cancer or a precancerous lesion, and if the rate of tumor growth was rapid, then we would expect to see an adverse effect among current users and a rapid decline in risk after cessation of therapy. This expectation appears to be true for breast cancer ( 4 ), but in breast cancer, the situation is complex because of the mix of hormone receptor–positive and hormone receptor–negative tumors. We have previously reported that in contrast to the association of hormone therapy with reduced breast cancer risk observed in postmenopausal women in this study, the use of oral contraceptives was associated with increased breast cancer risk among young BRCA1 mutation carriers ( 5 ). The third scenario is the most plausible, and it is premature to search for genetic factors that divide women into being susceptible or not susceptible to an increased breast cancer risk when using hormone therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0160.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207