Postmenopausal Levels of Endogenous Sex Hormones and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational epidemiologic studies and randomized trials have reported a protective effect of oral hormonal replacement therapy on risk of colorectal cancer. Only one previous prospective study, the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study, has reported on the relationship between endogenous hormones and incident colorectal cancer. Contrary to expectation, the investigators found that women with higher circulating estradiol levels were at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. We conducted a case-control study nested within the New York University Women's Health Study prospective cohort to evaluate the association between endogenous levels of estrone, estradiol, and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) with risk of colorectal cancer. We measured hormones and SHBG in serum samples collected at enrollment from a total of 148 women who subsequently developed colorectal cancer and 293 matched controls. Circulating estrone levels were positively associated with risk of colorectal cancer: The odds ratio for the highest versus lowest quartile of estrone was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.3). We found a nonsignificant inverse association between SHBG and colorectal cancer, which disappeared after adjusting for body mass index. We did not find an association between estradiol and colorectal cancer risk, but we cannot rule out a potential association because of substantial laboratory error in the measurement. Our results suggest that endogenous estrone is associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".