Association of thyroid carcinoma with pregnancy: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of scholars reported that reproductive factors play a significant role in thyroid cancer and the correlation between the two may affect the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid carcinoma during pregnancy. To determine whether pregnancy reproductive factors affect thyroid carcinoma, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies that investigated the association between pregnancy factors and thyroid carcinoma. PubMed, OVID and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to April 1st, 2013. The searched publications mainly investigated reproductive factors and the morbidity or prognosis of female thyroid carcinoma. The studies were filtered by predetermined standards and the quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale inventory. Two researchers independently extracted information on first author, year of publication, study design (case-control or prospective cohort), compared populations, inclusion and exclusion criteria and total sample size. Other researchers assessed the studies for publication bias and performed statistical analyses. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A total of 21 studies were selected for the meta-analysis, including 406,329 cases in total. Compared to the control group, the risk of thyroid carcinoma in women with a history of pregnancy was not significantly discrepant, [odds ratio (OR)=1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.11]. However, the risk of thyroid carcinoma in women with a history of ≥ 3 pregnancies was significantly increased (OR=1.39, 95% CI: 1.21-1.59). Furthermore, an interval of ≤ 5 years since the last pregnancy was closely associated with thyroid carcinoma (OR=1.53, 95% CI: 1.29-1.81). The patients developed thyroid carcinoma during pregnancy did not exhibit an increased risk of lymphatic metastasis (OR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.53-1.67); the risk of distant metastasis also did not increase significantly (OR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.86-1.24). Therefore, multiple pregnancies and a ≤ 5-year interval between pregnancies were identified as high-risk factors for thyroid carcinoma, whereas thyroid carcinoma during pregnancy was not associated with a significant risk of lymphatic and distant metastasis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".