Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family history of cancer may represent shared genetic and environmental risk factors for leukemia. The authors examined associations of first-degree family history of cancer with adult acute leukemia incidence by using data on 811 patients (or their proxies) identified at diagnosis and 637 population-based controls in the United States and Canada during 1986-1990. For proxy-interviewed patients, relative risks were elevated for family history of any cancer (relative risk = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3, 2.4), hematopoietic cancer (relative risk = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1, 3.0), leukemia (relative risk = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.3, 4.6), and breast cancer (relative risk = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0, 3.0) but not for colorectal, prostate, or lung cancer. For self-interviewed patients, family history of hematopoietic cancer was inversely associated with leukemia incidence (relative risk = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4, 1.1). Regardless of patient interview type, history of breast cancer in sisters was positively associated with adult acute leukemia, whereas history of breast cancer in mothers was not. The role of family history of cancer in leukemia etiology is unclear because of differential reporting by patients and proxies. Specifically, self-interviewed patients may underreport cancer in their first-degree relatives. Associations between family history of breast cancer and leukemia incidence may be the result of unmeasured, shared etiologies specific to these cancers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".