MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554000772 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.004

Moving forward with obesity research in breast cancer

2016· editorial· en· W2554000772 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Elisa Lohmann, Pamela J. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
FundersBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOverweightHazard ratioInternal medicineObesityBody mass indexGynecologyConfidence intervalOncologyRelative riskMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity has been associated with higher incidence of both post-menopausal, primarily receptor positive, and premenopausal triple negative breast cancer (BC) risk [ [1] Dobbins M. Decorby K. Choi B.C. The association between obesity and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of observational studies from 1985 to 2011. ISRN Prev Med. 2013; : 680536 PubMed Google Scholar ]. Secondary analysis of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial showed that obese versus non-obese postmenopausal women have a higher overall risk of BC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.40–1.79) and more advanced stage, larger tumor size (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.67–2.69) than normal weight women [ [2] Neuhouser M.L. Aragaki A.K. Prentice R.L. Manson J.E. Chlebowski R. Carty C.L. et al. Overweight, obesity, and postmenopausal invasive breast Cancer risk: a secondary analysis of the Women's Health initiative randomized clinical trials. JAMA Oncol. 2015 Aug; 1: 611-621https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1546 Crossref PubMed Scopus (345) Google Scholar ]. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis confirmed an increased risk of all-cause mortality for BC patients with body mass index (BMI) > 30mg/m2 at BC diagnosis versus normal weight patients (relative risk (RR), 1.41; 95% CI, 1.29–1.53) [ [3] Chan D.S. Vieira A.R. Aune D. Bandera E.V. Greenwood D.C. McTiernan A. et al. Body mass index and survival in women with breast cancer systematic literature review and meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies. Ann Oncol. 2014; 25: 1901-1914 Crossref PubMed Scopus (700) Google Scholar ]. Obesity is an independent prognostic factor of decreased pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patientsThe BreastVol. 32PreviewThe relation between higher body mass index (BMI) and pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer (BC) is a controversial issue according to the data of Western and Asian patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate BMI and pCR to NAC and discuss the importance of pCR outcomes in Turkish BC patients as a bridging country between Europe and Asia. Full-Text PDF The association between body mass index and immunohistochemical subtypes in breast cancerThe BreastVol. 32PreviewBody mass index (BMI) is defined as a poor prognostic factor in patients with breast cancer (BC). However, there are controversial results regarding the various effects of BMI on BC, hence the exact pathophysiology of the relation between obesity and BC is still under debate, and remains unclear. This paper aims to investigate the association between BMI at presentation and BC subtypes defined according to the immunohistochemical classification in both premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with BC. Full-Text PDF

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207