MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521440018 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw037

Reproductive factors, menopausal hormone therapies and primary liver cancer risk: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of observational studies

2016· review· en· W2521440018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guo‐Chao Zhong, Yan Liu, Nan Chen, Fa‐Bao Hao, Kang Wang, Jia-Hao Cheng, Jianping Gong, Xiong Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMeta-analysisMedicineOncologyCancerInternal medicineGynecologyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A striking gender disparity in the incidence and outcome of primary liver cancer (PLC) has been well recognized. Mounting evidence from basic research suggests that hormonal factors may be involved in the gender disparity of PLC. Whether hormonal exposures in human subjects are associated with PLC risk is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Whether reproductive factors and use of menopausal hormone therapies (MHTs) in women are associated with PLC risk remains controversial. We conducted this study to clarify this issue. SEARCH METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched to July, 2016 for studies published in English or Chinese. Observational studies (cohort, nested case-control and case-control) that provided risk estimates of reproductive factors, MHTs and PLC risk were eligible. The quality of included studies was determined based on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Summary risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Dose-response analysis was conducted where possible. OUTCOMES: < 0.01). Compared with never users, the pooled RRs of PLC were 0.60 (95% CI 0.37, 0.96) for ever users of MHT, 0.73 (95% CI 0.46, 1.17) for ever users of estrogen-only therapy (ET) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.45, 1.02) for ever users of estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT). The pooled RR of PLC for the oldest versus youngest category of menarcheal age was 0.50 (95% CI 0.32, 0.79). Oophorectomy was significantly associated with an increased risk of PLC (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.46, 3.41). No significant association of age at first birth, and spontaneous or induced abortion with PLC risk was found. No meta-analysis was performed for the association of age at menopause, breastfeeding, hysterectomy, menopausal status and stillbirth with PLC risk owing to huge methodological heterogeneity and/or very limited studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Parity is associated with PLC risk in a J-shaped dose-response pattern. Late age at menarche and ever use of MHT are associated with a reduced risk of PLC, whereas there is no association of ever use of ET and EPT, age at first birth, or spontaneous and induced abortion with PLC risk. Compared to women with no history of oophorectomy, those with a history of oophorectomy are at an increased risk of PLC. Our findings provide some epidemiological support for a role of hormonal exposures in the development of PLC in women. However, these findings should be interpreted with much caution because of the limited number of studies and potential biases, and need to be validated by studies with good design and large sample size.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.038
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.156 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Reproduction UpdateSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207