Circulating Sex Hormones Are Associated With Gastric and Colorectal Cancers but Not Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal cancers show an unexplained male predominance, but few prospective studies have investigated sex hormones and gastrointestinal cancer risk. This study aimed to determine the impact of circulating sex hormones on risk of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancers in men and women. METHODS: We included 219,425 men and 147,180 women from the UK Biobank. Sex hormones were quantified using chemiluminescent immunoassay. Gastrointestinal cancers were identified from cancer registry linkages. Sex hormone concentrations and risk of gastrointestinal cancers were investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: During the 10 years of follow-up, 376 esophageal adenocarcinoma, 108 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and 333 gastric and 2,868 colorectal cancer cases were identified. Increased hazard ratios (HRs) were found for sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) and risk of gastric cancer in men (Q4 vs Q1 HR 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-2.17, Ptrend = 0.01). Free testosterone was inversely associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in women (Q4 vs Q1 HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.98, Ptrend = 0.05). For colorectal cancer, SHBG was associated with a reduced risk among men (Q4 vs Q1 HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03, Ptrend = 0.04) and free testosterone concentrations was associated with a reduction in risk among women (Q4 vs Q1 HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97, Ptrend = 0.01). No associations were found for esophageal adenocarcinoma. DISCUSSION: In this large prospective investigation of prediagnostic sex hormones and risk of gastrointestinal cancers, men with higher SHBG concentrations had higher gastric, yet lower colorectal, cancer risks, whereas women with higher free testosterone levels had a lower risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and colorectal 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".