MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169626442 · doi:10.1155/2009/672492

Circulating Vitamin D and Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

2009· article· en· W2169626442 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alan A. Arslan, Tess V. Clendenen, Karen L. Koenig, Johan Hultdin, Kerstin Enquist, Åsa Ågren, Annekatrin Lukanova, Hubert Sjodin, Anne Zeleniuch‐Jacquotte, Roy E. Shore, Göran Hallmans, Paolo Toniolo, Eva Lundin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNew York UniversityUmeå UniversitetCancerfondenYork University
KeywordsMedicineEpithelial ovarian cancerOncologyOvarian cancerCancerPhysiologyInternal medicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a nested case-control study within two prospective cohorts, the New York University Women's Health Study and the Northern Sweden Health and Disease Study, to examine the association between prediagnostic circulating levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and the risk of subsequent invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The 25(OH)D levels were measured in serum or plasma from 170 incident cases of EOC and 373 matched controls. Overall, circulating 25(OH)D levels were not associated with the risk of EOC in combined cohort analysis: adjusted OR for the top tertile versus the reference tertile, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.59-2.01). In addition, there was no evidence of an interaction effect between VDR SNP genotype or haplotype and circulating 25(OH)D levels in relation to ovarian cancer risk, although more complex gene-environment interactions may exist.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OncologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207