Insulin-like growth factor-1, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3, and breast cancer risk: observational and Mendelian randomization analyses with ∼430 000 women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
•We conducted complementary observational and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to investigate the role of circulating insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in breast cancer development•Consistent positive associations were found between circulating IGF-1 and breast cancer risk for both analyses•These results support a probable causal role of the IGF pathway in breast cancer development BackgroundEpidemiological evidence supports a positive association between circulating insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentrations and breast cancer risk, but both the magnitude and causality of this relationship are uncertain. We conducted observational analyses with adjustment for regression dilution bias, and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses allowed for causal inference.Patients and methodsWe investigated the associations between circulating IGF-1 concentrations and incident breast cancer risk in 206 263 women in the UK Biobank. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. HRs were corrected for regression dilution using repeat IGF-1 measures available in a subsample of 6711 women. For the MR analyses, genetic variants associated with circulating IGF-1 and IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) levels were identified and their association with breast cancer was examined with two-sample MR methods using genome-wide data from 122 977 cases and 105 974 controls.ResultsIn the UK Biobank, after a median follow-up of 7.1 years, 4360 incident breast cancer cases occurred. In the multivariable-adjusted models corrected for regression dilution, higher IGF-1 concentrations were associated with a greater risk of breast cancer (HR per 5 nmol/l increment of IGF-1 = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07–1.16). Similar positive associations were found by follow-up time, menopausal status, body mass index, and other risk factors. In the MR analyses, a 5 nmol/l increment in genetically-predicted IGF-1 concentration was associated with a greater breast cancer risk (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01–1.10; P = 0.02), with a similar effect estimate for estrogen-positive (ER+) tumours, but no effect found for estrogen-negative (ER−) tumours. Genetically-predicted IGFBP-3 concentrations were not associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per 1-standard deviation increment = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97–1.04; P = 0.98).ConclusionOur results support a probable causal relationship between circulating IGF-1 concentrations and breast cancer, suggesting that interventions targeting the IGF pathway may be beneficial in preventing breast tumorigenesis. Epidemiological evidence supports a positive association between circulating insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentrations and breast cancer risk, but both the magnitude and causality of this relationship are uncertain. We conducted observational analyses with adjustment for regression dilution bias, and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses allowed for causal inference. We investigated the associations between circulating IGF-1 concentrations and incident breast cancer risk in 206 263 women in the UK Biobank. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. HRs were corrected for regression dilution using repeat IGF-1 measures available in a subsample of 6711 women. For the MR analyses, genetic variants associated with circulating IGF-1 and IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) levels were identified and their association with breast cancer was examined with two-sample MR methods using genome-wide data from 122 977 cases and 105 974 controls. In the UK Biobank, after a median follow-up of 7.1 years, 4360 incident breast cancer cases occurred. In the multivariable-adjusted models corrected for regression dilution, higher IGF-1 concentrations were associated with a greater risk of breast cancer (HR per 5 nmol/l increment of IGF-1 = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07–1.16). Similar positive associations were found by follow-up time, menopausal status, body mass index, and other risk factors. In the MR analyses, a 5 nmol/l increment in genetically-predicted IGF-1 concentration was associated with a greater breast cancer risk (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01–1.10; P = 0.02), with a similar effect estimate for estrogen-positive (ER+) tumours, but no effect found for estrogen-negative (ER−) tumours. Genetically-predicted IGFBP-3 concentrations were not associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per 1-standard deviation increment = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97–1.04; P = 0.98). Our results support a probable causal relationship between circulating IGF-1 concentrations and breast cancer, suggesting that interventions targeting the IGF pathway may be beneficial in preventing breast tumorigenesis.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it