Risk factors for male breast cancer in Canada, 1994–1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatively little attention has been paid to the aetiology of male breast cancer and the current understanding of female breast cancer, primarily related to reproductive events, cannot be readily transferred to understanding the cancer in males. However, since male breast cancer occurs in the absence of factors related to childbearing and menstruation, its aetiology may provide special insights into the causes of breast cancer in women. We examined lifestyle risk factors for male breast cancer as part of a Canadian, multi-site, population-based, case-control study. Eighty-one newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed cases and 1905 male controls aged 42-74 were analysed using unconditional logistic regression. Increased risks were found for men with a mother or sister with breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.65, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.62-8.19). Higher physical activity levels (moderate, and strenuous recreational plus occupational) were associated with a decreased risk of male breast cancer (highest quartile, adjusted OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91). Similarly, higher risks were associated with higher weight 2 years before interview (2.19, 95% CI 1.08-4.43), maximum weight (OR 2.66) and higher body mass index (OR 1.60). Higher vegetable consumption and coffee consumption were associated with decreased risk, whereas higher beta-carotene, vitamin E and calcium supplementation were associated with statistically significant increased risk. The small number of cases and multiple comparisons preclude strong conclusions, but our study is consistent with studies suggesting obesity and family history increase risk, and physical activity decreases risk of breast cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".