Risk factors of epithelial ovarian carcinomas among women with endometriosis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this review was to evaluate the published literature on epidemiologic risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer among women with a diagnosis of endometriosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus. Studies comparing epidemiologic risk factors of epithelial ovarian cancer among women with endometriosis were included. A quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Eight of 794 articles met the inclusion criteria. A lower risk of epithelial ovarian cancer was observed in women with documented complete surgical excision of endometriotic tissue and suggested among women with unilateral oophorectomy. The use of oral contraceptives (≥10 years) may be associated with a lower risk of epithelial ovarian cancer among women with endometriosis, whereas older age at endometriosis diagnosis (≥45 years, pre- or postmenopausal), nulliparity, hyperestrogenism (endogenous or exogenous), premenopausal status at endometriosis diagnosis, solid compartments as well as larger size of endometrioma (≥9 cm in diameter at endometriosis diagnosis) were all associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A subgroup of women with endometriosis characterized by endometriosis observed through surgery or imaging after the age of 45 years, nulliparity, postmenopausal status at endometriosis diagnosis, larger size of endometrioma (>9 cm) at endometriosis diagnosis, hyperestrogenism (endogenous or exogenous) and/or cysts with solid compartments may have an elevated risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. However, due to the limited number and size of studies in this area we cannot draw definitive conclusions. Further research into a risk factor profile among women with endometriosis is needed before clear recommendations can be made.
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 | 0.002 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".