Menstrual and Reproductive Factors, Hormone Use, and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the relation between menstrual and reproductive factors, exogenous hormones, and risk of pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Eleven case-control studies within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-control Consortium took part in the present study, including in total 2838 case and 4748 control women. Pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a 2-step logistic regression model and adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: An inverse OR was observed in women who reported having had hysterectomy (ORyesvs.no, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91), remaining significant in postmenopausal women and never-smoking women, adjusted for potential PC confounders. A mutually adjusted model with the joint effect for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and hysterectomy showed significant inverse associations with PC in women who reported having had hysterectomy with HRT use (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Our large pooled analysis suggests that women who have had a hysterectomy may have reduced risk of PC. However, we cannot rule out that the reduced risk could be due to factors or indications for having had a hysterectomy. Further investigation of risk according to HRT use and reason for hysterectomy may be necessary.
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 | 0.000 | 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".