Estrogen Plus Progestin Hormone Therapy and Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Menopausal estrogen-alone therapy is a risk factor for endometrial and ovarian cancers. When a progestin is included with the estrogen daily (continuous estrogen-progestin combined therapy), there is no increased risk of endometrial cancer. However, the effect of continuous estrogen-progestin combined therapy on risk of ovarian cancer is less clear. METHODS: We pooled primary data from five population-based case-control studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, including 1509 postmenopausal ovarian cancer cases and 2295 postmenopausal controls. Information on previous menopausal hormonal therapy use, as well as ovarian cancer risk factors, was collected using in-person interviews. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between use of continuous estrogen-progestin combined therapy and risk of ovarian cancer by duration and recency of use and disease histotype. RESULTS: Ever postmenopausal use of continuous estrogen-progestin combined therapy was not associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer overall (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.72, 1.0). A decreased risk was observed for mucinous ovarian cancer (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.91). The other main ovarian cancer histotypes did not show an association (endometrioid: OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.57, 1.3, clear cell: OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.40, 1.2; serous: OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.80, 1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Given that estrogen-alone therapy has been shown to be associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer, these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that adding a progestin each day ameliorates the carcinogenic effects of estrogen on the cells of origin for all histotypes 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".