Mendelian randomisation study of age at menarche and age at menopause and the risk of colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence supports an association between use of menopausal hormone therapy and decreased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, indicating a role of exogenous sex hormones in CRC development. However, findings on endogenous oestrogen exposure and CRC are inconsistent. METHODS: We used a Mendelian randomisation approach to test for a causal effect of age at menarche and age at menopause as surrogates for endogenous oestrogen exposure on CRC risk. Weighted genetic risk scores based on 358 single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with age at menarche and 51 single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with age at menopause were used to estimate the association with CRC risk using logistic regression in 12,944 women diagnosed with CRC and 10,741 women without CRC from three consortia. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address pleiotropy and possible confounding by body mass index. RESULTS: Genetic risk scores for age at menarche (odds ratio per year 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.02) and age at menopause (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.01) were not significantly associated with CRC risk. The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not support a causal relationship between genetic risk scores for age at menarche and age at menopause and CRC risk.
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 | 0.051 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".