Relationship of circulating insulin-like growth factor-I and binding proteins 1–7 with mammographic density among women undergoing image-guided diagnostic breast biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammographic density (MD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor that reflects fibroglandular and adipose tissue composition, but its biologic underpinnings are poorly understood. Insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGFBPs) are markers that may be associated with MD given their hypothesized role in breast carcinogenesis. IGFBPs sequester IGF-I, limiting its bioavailability. Prior studies have found positive associations between circulating IGF-I and the IGF-I:IGFBP-3 ratio and breast cancer risk. We evaluated the associations of IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and six other IGFBPs with MD. Serum IGF measures were quantified in 296 women, ages 40–65, undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy. Volumetric density measures (MD-V) were assessed in pre-biopsy digital mammograms using single X-ray absorptiometry. Area density measures (MD-A) were estimated by computer-assisted thresholding software. Age, body mass index (BMI), and BMI 2 -adjusted linear regression models were used to examine associations of serum IGF measures with MD. Effect modification by BMI was also assessed. IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were not strongly associated with MD after BMI adjustment. In multivariable analyses among premenopausal women, IGFBP-2 was positively associated with both percent MD-V ( β = 1.49, p value = 0.02) and MD-A ( β = 1.55, p value = 0.05). Among postmenopausal women, positive relationships between IGFBP-2 and percent MD-V ( β = 2.04, p = 0.003) were observed; the positive associations between IGFBP-2 and percent MD-V were stronger among lean women (BMI < 25 kg/m 2 ) ( β = 5.32, p = 0.0002; p interaction = 0.0003). In this comprehensive study of IGFBPs and MD, we observed a novel positive association between IGFBP-2 and MD, particularly among women with lower BMI. In concert with in vitro studies suggesting a dual role of IGFBP-2 on breast tissue, promoting cell proliferation as well as inhibiting tumorigenesis, our findings suggest that further studies assessing the role of IGFBP-2 in breast tissue composition, in addition to IGF-1 and IGFBP-3, 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".