A Prospective Study of Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1, Its Binding Protein 3, and Risk of Endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several retrospective case-control studies suggested that insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) or insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) was associated with endometriosis. However, results are inconsistent and no prospective study exists. We prospectively evaluated associations between plasma levels of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 and laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis in a case-control study nested within the Nurses' Health Study II. Between blood collections in 1996-1999 and 2007, we ascertained 310 premenopausal women with incident endometriosis and 615 matched controls. We estimated incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals using multivariable conditional logistic regression. We observed no statistically significant associations between endometriosis and IGF-1 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61, 1.27; Ptrend = 0.48), IGFBP-3 (IRR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.80, 1.57; Ptrend = 0.51), and the IGF-1:IGFBP-3 molar ratio (IRR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.34; Ptrend = 0.64), comparing the top with the bottom tertile. IGF-1, IGFBP-3, and the molar ratio appeared to be positively associated with endometriosis risk among women aged <40 years at blood draw (IGF-1: IRR = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.86, 2.98; IGFBP-3: IRR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.16; IGF-1:IGFBP-3: IRR = 1.57, 95% CI: 0.85, 2.88) but not among women aged ≥40 years at blood draw (all Pheterogeneity ≤ 0.05). Overall, these data suggest that, if IGF-1 or IGFBP-3 plays a role in the etiology of endometriosis, it is minimal and perhaps only among younger 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".