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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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