MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2937693656 · doi:10.14288/1.0378077

Prescription medications and breast cancer : how do bisphosphonates and omeprazole affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer?

2019· article· en· W2937693656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brendan Bakos

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineAffect (linguistics)CancerMedical prescriptionGynecologyOncologyInternal medicineNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women. It is a heterogeneous disease having a number of risk factors that vary by menopausal status and disease subtype. There is evidence that some pharmaceutical medications may affect breast cancer risk. This thesis investigated bisphosphonates, which are used to treat osteoporosis, as well as omeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease, and their association with breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Methods: This study utilized questionnaire information provided by participants in the Canadian Breast Cancer Study, a case-control study conducted jointly in Vancouver, British Columbia and Kingston, Ontario. Data from the British Columbia arm of the study was linked to PharmaNet, an administrative pharmaceutical database that records prescriptions dispensed in British Columbia. Multiple imputation and logistic regression were used to model the association between the prescription medications and breast cancer while adjusting for confounders. Results: There was not enough evidence to suggest an association between omeprazole and breast cancer, considered either as a whole (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.68-1.52) or by estrogen receptor status (p-heterogeneity = 0.94). However, there was evidence to suggest long-term bisphosphonate use (>1025 cumulative Defined Daily Doses) was associated with a decreased risk of invasive breast cancer, relative to no bisphosphonate use (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.45-0.94). The protective effect was not evident for situ disease (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.36-2.19). There was no difference in risk observed by estrogen receptor status (p-heterogeneity = 0.83). Conclusions: This research showed a protective effect for invasive breast cancer with long-term bisphosphonate use, but the results must be interpreted cautiously due to the potential for confounding by indication. This potential bias has been mitigated somewhat by adjusting for factors strongly associated with bone density, such as BMI, but does not completely eliminate the possibility. The study also had limited power to investigate risk with breast cancer subtypes. In the case of both omeprazole and bisphosphonates, further investigation is warranted to elucidate their relationship with breast cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→