MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948249880 · doi:10.2337/db19-1506-p

1506-P: Breast Cancer as a Risk Factor for New Diabetes

2019· article· en· W2948249880 on OpenAlexaff
Reema Shah, Hertzel C. Gerstein, SZIMONETTA KOMJÁTHIN SZÉPLIGETI, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Reimar W. Thomsen

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioCohortDiabetes mellitusPopulationCancerRisk factorInternal medicineCohort studyProportional hazards modelType 2 diabetesOncologyGynecologyConfidence intervalEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While diabetes is an important risk factor for breast cancer, less is known regarding whether a breast cancer diagnosis is associated with increased risk of subsequent diabetes. We therefore assessed the effect of a breast cancer diagnosis on incident diabetes, using population-level data from Danish healthcare registries during 2005-2016. Our study population comprised 33,909 women aged >50 years with new-onset breast cancer and 313,998 comparison cohort members matched by age and the breast cancer diagnosis date (index date) from the general population, all with no prior history of cancer or diabetes. Women with breast cancer and their comparison cohort members were followed for up to 12 years, to ascertain a first occurrence of glucose-lowering drug treatment or hospital-diagnosed diabetes. The hazard of breast cancer for subsequent diabetes was computed using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for a range of comorbidities and medications. Mean age at baseline was 66.0 in cancer patients and 65.8 in the comparison cohort. The rate of developing diabetes was 15% greater in breast cancer patients than in the comparison cohort during the first year after breast cancer diagnosis/index date (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.30). During total follow-up (median 5.2 years), the diabetes rate was 23% greater in women with breast cancer (aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.30), corresponding to 8.4 new cases of diabetes per 1000 women per year vs. 6.8 among comparison cohort members. Breast cancer patients were more likely to be treated with an insulin-based regimen (4.8%) compared to comparison cohort members (2.1%). Our findings suggest that breast cancer is an important risk factor for diabetes. Breast cancer patients may benefit from targeted screening for diabetes and counseling regarding risk factor modification. Disclosure R. Shah: None. H. Gerstein: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. S.K. Szépligeti: None. H.T. Sôrensen: None. R.W. Thomsen: None.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 venueDiabetesSame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207