Association between circulating levels of sex steroid hormones and esophageal adenocarcinoma in the FINBAR Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is characterized by a strong male predominance. Sex steroid hormones have been hypothesized to underlie this sex disparity, but no population-based study to date has examined this potential association. METHODS: Using mass spectrometry and ELISA, we quantitated sex steroid hormones and sex hormone binding globulin, respectively, in plasma from males- 172 EA cases and 185 controls-within the Factors Influencing the Barrett/Adenocarcinoma Relationship (FINBAR) Study, a case-control investigation conducted in Northern Ireland and Ireland. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between circulating hormones and EA. RESULTS: Higher androgen:estrogen ratio metrics were associated with increased odds of EA (e.g., testosterone:estradiol ratio ORQ4 v. Q1 = 2.58, 95%CI = 1.23-5.43; Ptrend = 0.009). All estrogens and androgens were associated with significant decreased odds of EA. When restricted to individuals with minimal to no decrease in body mass index, the size of association for the androgen:estrogen ratio was not greatly altered. CONCLUSIONS: This first study of sex steroid hormones and EA provides tentative evidence that androgen:estrogen balance may be a factor related to EA. Replication of these findings in prospective studies is needed to enhance confidence in the causality of this effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".