Ovarian cancer risk factors by tumor aggressiveness: An analysis from the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ovarian cancer risk factors differ by histotype; however, within subtype, there is substantial variability in outcomes. We hypothesized that risk factor profiles may influence tumor aggressiveness, defined by time between diagnosis and death, independent of histology. Among 1.3 million women from 21 prospective cohorts, 4,584 invasive epithelial ovarian cancers were identified and classified as highly aggressive (death in <1 year, n = 864), very aggressive (death in 1 to < 3 years, n = 1,390), moderately aggressive (death in 3 to < 5 years, n = 639), and less aggressive (lived 5+ years, n = 1,691). Using competing risks Cox proportional hazards regression, we assessed heterogeneity of associations by tumor aggressiveness for all cases and among serous and endometrioid/clear cell tumors. Associations between parity (p het = 0.01), family history of ovarian cancer (p het = 0.02), body mass index (BMI; p het ≤ 0.04) and smoking (p het < 0.01) and ovarian cancer risk differed by aggressiveness. A first/single pregnancy, relative to nulliparity, was inversely associated with highly aggressive disease (HR: 0.72; 95% CI [0.58–0.88]), no association was observed for subsequent pregnancies (per pregnancy, 0.97 [0.92–1.02]). In contrast, first and subsequent pregnancies were similarly associated with less aggressive disease (0.87 for both). Family history of ovarian cancer was only associated with risk of less aggressive disease (1.94 [1.47–2.55]). High BMI (≥35 vs . 20 to < 25 kg/m 2 , 1.93 [1.46–2.56] and current smoking ( vs . never, 1.30 [1.07–1.57]) were associated with increased risk of highly aggressive disease. Results were similar within histotypes. Ovarian cancer risk factors may be directly associated with subtypes defined by tumor aggressiveness, rather than through differential effects on histology. Studies to assess biological pathways are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".