Reproductive factors and thyroid cancer risk: Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessed pooled risk on reproductive factors and oral contraceptives (OC) on thyroid cancer (TC) using published studies (1996-2017). METHODS: Summary odds ratio (OR) for case-control studies (n = 10) and risk ratio (RR) for cohort studies (n = 9) was done. RESULTS: OR was 1.43 (95% CI: 1.16-1.77) for age at menarche >14 years, 1.49 (95% CI: 1.19-1.86) for parity >2, 1.38 (95% CI: 1.18-1.61) for miscarriage/abortion, and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.39-3.01) for artificial menopause. A protective effect (ORs: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99) on TC was observed for prolonged use of OCs. RR was 1.17 (95% CI: 0.90-1.57) for age at menarche >14 years, 1.10 (95% CI: 0.94-1.27) for parity >2, 1.20 (95% CI: 1.03-1.40) for miscarriage/abortion, and 2.16 (95% CI: 1.41-3.31) for artificial menopause and protective effect (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65-0.92) for prolonged use of OCs. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports an association due to changes in female hormones during menstrual cycle and pregnancy with the risk of TC and explains female preponderance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".