MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990891023 · doi:10.1186/s13058-019-1213-1

Alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and familial breast cancer risk: findings from the Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC)

2019· article· en· W2990891023 on OpenAlexaff
Nur Zeinomar, Julia A. Knight, Jeanine M. Genkinger, Kelly‐Anne Phillips, Mary B. Daly, Roger L. Milne, Gillian S. Dite, Rebecca D. Kehm, Yuyan Liao, Melissa C. Southey, Wendy K. Chung, Graham G. Giles, Sue‐Anne McLachlan, Michael Friedländer, Prue C. Weideman, Gord Glendon, Stephanie Nesci, Irene L. Andrulis, Saundra S. Buys, Esther M. John, Robert J. MacInnis, John L. Hopper, Mary Beth Terry

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCancer AustraliaNational Breast Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerSurgical oncologyProspective cohort studyAlcohol consumptionCigarette smokingOncologyCohort studyCohortInternal medicineCancerGynecologyEnvironmental healthAlcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (BC), but it is unclear whether these associations vary by a woman’s familial BC risk. Methods Using the Prospective Family Study Cohort, we evaluated associations between alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and BC risk. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We examined whether associations were modified by familial risk profile (FRP), defined as the 1-year incidence of BC predicted by Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), a pedigree-based algorithm. Results We observed 1009 incident BC cases in 17,435 women during a median follow-up of 10.4 years. We found no overall association of smoking or alcohol consumption with BC risk (current smokers compared with never smokers HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85–1.23; consuming ≥ 7 drinks/week compared with non-regular drinkers HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92–1.32), but we did observe differences in associations based on FRP and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Women with lower FRP had an increased risk of ER-positive BC associated with consuming ≥ 7 drinks/week (compared to non-regular drinkers), whereas there was no association for women with higher FRP. For example, women at the 10th percentile of FRP (5-year BOADICEA = 0.15%) had an estimated HR of 1.46 (95% CI 1.07–1.99), whereas there was no association for women at the 90th percentile (5-year BOADICEA = 4.2%) (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80–1.44). While the associations with smoking were not modified by FRP, we observed a positive multiplicative interaction by FRP ( p interaction = 0.01) for smoking status in women who also consumed alcohol, but not in women who were non-regular drinkers. Conclusions Moderate alcohol intake was associated with increased BC risk, particularly for women with ER-positive BC, but only for those at lower predicted familial BC risk (5-year BOADICEA < 1.25). For women with a high FRP (5-year BOADICEA ≥ 6.5%) who also consumed alcohol, being a current smoker was associated with increased BC risk.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast Cancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207