MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314410888 · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000000456

The LEGACY Girls Study

2016· article· en· W2314410888 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esther M. John, Mary Beth Terry, Theresa H.M. Keegan, Angela R. Bradbury, Julia A. Knight, Wendy K. Chung, Caren J. Frost, Lothar Lilge, Linda Patrick‐Miller, Lisa A. Schwartz, Alice S. Whittemore, Saundra S. Buys, Mary B. Daly, Irene L. Andrulis

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBreast cancerFamily historyPsychosocialAnthropometryContext (archaeology)MedicineBreast developmentLife course approachCohortEpidemiologyCohort studyDemographyCancerGerontologyGynecologyPsychologyInternal medicineDevelopmental psychologyBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the timing of pubertal milestones has been associated with breast cancer risk, few studies of girls' development include girls at increased breast cancer risk due to their family history. METHODS: The Lessons in Epidemiology and Genetics of Adult Cancer from Youth (LEGACY) Girls Study was initiated in 2011 in the USA and Canada to assess the relation between early life exposures and intermediate markers of breast cancer risk (e.g., pubertal development, breast tissue characteristics) and to investigate psychosocial well being and health behaviors in the context of family history. We describe the methods used to establish and follow a cohort of 1,040 girls ages 6-13 years at baseline, half with a breast cancer family history, and the collection of questionnaire data (family history, early life exposures, growth and development, psychosocial and behavioral), anthropometry, biospecimens, and breast tissue characteristics using optical spectroscopy. RESULTS: During this initial 5-year phase of the study, follow-up visits are conducted every 6 months for repeated data and biospecimen collection. Participation in baseline components was high (98% for urine, 97.5% for blood or saliva, and 98% for anthropometry). At enrollment, 77% of girls were premenarcheal and 49% were at breast Tanner stage T1. CONCLUSIONS: This study design allows thorough examination of events affecting girls' growth and development and how they differ across the spectrum of breast cancer risk. A better understanding of early life breast cancer risk factors will be essential to enhance prevention across the lifespan for those with and without a family history of the disease.

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)0.002
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207