MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P6-13-04: Estrogen-alone based hormone replacement therapy (HRT) reduces breast cancer (BrCa) incidence and mortality whereas estrogen plus progestin Provera based HRT increases both BrCa incidence and BrCa mortality: A comparative analysis of Women's Health Initiative trials

2019· article· en· W2943896988 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Ragaz, Haili Qian, Hubert Wong, Wilson Ks, Shayan Shakeraneh, JJ Spinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health CareBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Breast cancerGynecologyEstrogenInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)ProgestinCancerConfidence intervalOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract OBJECTIVE: To quantitate breast cancer incidence (BrCa-I) and mortality (BrCa-M) outcome differences between the two Women's Health Initiative (WHI) HRT trials,1,2 the ratio of hazards was calculated for estrogen-alone based hormone replacement therapy (E-HRT) vs. placebo (P), and E + progestin Provera (ProgProv) combination HRT vs. P trials. METHODS: Hazard ratios (HR) of BrCa-I and BrCa-M and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained from both WHI HRT trials. Subsequently, to compare BrCa outcomes between E-HRT vs. E + ProgProv, the ratios of HRs between the trials (HR1/HR2) were estimated separately for i. BrCa-I all women, ii. BrCa-I low Gail score (Gail score <1.75*), and iii. BrCa-M. The 95% CI was derived through logarithmic transformation of the 95% CI originally reported. RESULTS: Outcome Comparison, the two WHI HRT randomized trials. Ratio of Hazards, BrCa Incidence and BrCa mortality E-HRT vs. P, HR1 (95% CI)E-HRT + ProgProv vs. P, HR2 (95% CI)HR1/HR2 (95% CI)pBrCa-I All Woman10.77 (0.62-0.95)1.25 (1.07-1.46)0.62 (0.47-0.80)0.0004BrCa-I Low Gail Score* (Gail score <1.75)10.65 (0.50-0.86)1.24 (1.01-1.51)0.53 (0.38-0.74)0.0002BrCa-M20.55 (0.33-0.92)1.44 (0.97-2.15)0.38 (0.20-0.75)0.004*Gail score <1.75; HRs calculated from Reference 1, Figure 3 CONCLUSIONS: Our calculations show that the different outcomes between the two WHI HRT trials, estimated as ratio of hazards, are highly significant on statistical basis, both for BrCa incidence and for BrCa mortality. These findings highlight the potential carcinogenic impact of ProgProv and the major public health benefits of HRT based on E alone. REFERENCES: 1. Anderson GL, Chlebowski RT, Aragaki AK, et al. Conjugated equine oestrogen and breast cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: extended follow-up of the Women's Health Initiative randomised placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology 2012;13:476-86. 2. Manson JE, Aragaki AK, Rossouw JE, et al. Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Long-term All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trials. JAMA 2017;318:927-38. Citation Format: Ragaz J, Qian H, Wong H, Wilson KS, Shakeraneh S, Spinelli JJ. Estrogen-alone based hormone replacement therapy (HRT) reduces breast cancer (BrCa) incidence and mortality whereas estrogen plus progestin Provera based HRT increases both BrCa incidence and BrCa mortality: A comparative analysis of Women's Health Initiative trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-13-04.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207