Fluvastatin and the Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple studies have investigated the associations between fluvatatin and the risk of breast cancer (BC), but their results were conflicting. A meta-analysis of observational studies published regarding this subject was conducted in the present study. It aims to estimate the associations between fluvastatin use and the risk of BC. Pubmed and chinese national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) database was searched up to January, 2015 to identify eligible observational studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess quality of the studies. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated (fixed effect model: Mantel-Haenszel). Heterogeneities were evaluated before the calculation. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted. In total, four studies contributed to the analysis. Overall, fluvastatin use negatively correlated with BC risk (RR = 0.74, 95 % CI = 0.58, 0.95). In conclusion, fluvastatin use may reduce the risk of BC, but more research is needed to confirm this finding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".