Does preventive oophorectomy increase the risk of depression in BRCA mutation carriers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: BRCA mutation carriers are advised to undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to prevent ovarian cancer. The abrupt hormonal withdrawal associated with early surgical menopause has been shown to increase the risk of depression and anxiety among women in the general population. The impact in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is not known. METHODS: We undertook a matched prospective study of BRCA mutation carriers to evaluate the impact of oophorectomy on self-reported initiation of antidepressant use. We identified women with no personal history of cancer or depression and prospectively evaluated the frequency of self-reported medication use after surgery. Each exposed participant (oophorectomy) was randomly matched to a control participant (no oophorectomy) according to year of birth (within 3 years), BRCA mutation type (BRCA1 or BRCA2), and country of residence (Canada, United States, Poland). A total of 506 matched sets were included. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of antidepressant use (ever/never) following preventive oophorectomy in the entire study population and stratified by age at oophorectomy and by use of hormone therapy. RESULTS: Oophorectomy was not associated with more frequent antidepressant use among BRCA mutation carriers (OR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.96). We observed reductions in the odds of antidepressant medication use among women who underwent oophorectomy before the age of 50 years (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.14-0.78) and among those who initiated hormone therapy use after oophorectomy (OR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.14-0.90). Findings were similar when the analysis was based on self-reported depression (rather than antidepressant use). CONCLUSIONS: Although based on a small number of women, these findings suggest that oophorectomy does not increase psychological distress among women at an elevated risk of ovarian 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".