MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177158537

제 2형 당뇨병 환자의 유방암 발생 위험 및 사망률에 대한 메트포민의 영향 : 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석

2015· article· ko· W3177158537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venue한국임상약학회지 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetforminMeta-analysisBreast cancerFunnel plotInternal medicineOdds ratioPublication biasCancerOncologyRelative riskIncidence (geometry)Cohort studyConfidence intervalInsulin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The protective effect of metformin against breast cancer is inconclusive. Objective: To evaluate the effect of metformin on breast cancer risk and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Method: A comprehensive literature search was performed for pertinent articles published prior to June 30, 2014, using PubMed and EMBASE. Study heterogeneity was estimated with I2 statistic. The data from the included studies were pooled and weighted by random-effects model. The quality of each included study was assessed on the basis of the 9-star Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and publication bias was evaluated by visual inspection of a funnel plot. Results: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis of the association of metformin and breast cancer risk. By synthesizing the data from the studies, the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.87) (p = 0.0005). Three cohort studies were included for meta-analysis of the association between metformin and breast cancer- related mortality. Metformin was associated with a significant decrease in mortality (Risk ratio: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.90, p = 0.007). Conclusion: The present metaanalysis suggests that metformin appears to be associated with a lower risk of breast cancer incidence and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue한국임상약학회지Same topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207