The effects of transdermal and oral oestrogen replacement therapy on colorectal cancer risk in postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of oral and transdermal oestrogen replacement therapy on the risk of colorectal cancer. Data from a nested case-control study, designed to investigate the effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on colorectal cancer were analysed. New cases of colorectal cancer, diagnosed between 1992 and mid-1998 (N=1197), were identified using the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency cancer registry. Women >/=50 years of age, eligible for coverage by the Saskatchewan Prescription Drug Plan, were included in the study. Four controls per case were age matched to cases, using incidence density sampling. The outpatient prescription drug plan database was used to ascertain oestrogen prescriptions. Women were classified according to history of transdermal (TDE) and oral (OE) oestrogen use. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Compared with women who had never used HRT, ORs for <3 and >/=3 years of TDE use and colorectal cancer were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.43-1.10) and 0.33 (95% CI: 0.12-0.95), and for OE use were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.73-1.01) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60-0.93), respectively. The risk reduction for colorectal cancer with TDE may be greater in magnitude than that which has been reported for oral HRT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".