Family history of breast cancer and risk of benign breast diseases: an integrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Some benign breast diseases (BBD) can determine an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Environmental factors related to lifestyle and family history of breast cancer may be associated with BBD development. However, the effect of family history of breast cancer on the risk of benign breast diseases is still unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between family history of breast cancer and benign breast diseases. Methods: This is an integrative review that selected observational studies in different databases to analyze the association between BBD and family history of breast cancer, considering the different classification criteria for both benign diseases and family history. All studies were published between 1977 and 2016. A total of 13 studies were selected, among which ten are case-control and case-cohort studies; and three are cohort studies. Most studies received high or moderate quality classification according to the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. Results: Family history of breast cancer was associated with the development of proliferative lesions and the presence of atypia, and it was more closely related to the development of benign diseases in young women, with a tendency to decrease with advancing age. Conclusion: Studies suggest there may be an association between family history of breast cancer and benign breast diseases; nevertheless, no statistically significant results were found in many case-control studies, and more robust prospective research is necessary to further clarify this association.
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".