Long-term Use of Hormone Replacement Therapy is Associated With a Lower Risk of Developing High-risk Serrated Polyps in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS/BACKGROUND: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and parity have been suggested protective factors against the development of colorectal polyps. However, there are a limited number of studies that have examined the relationship of these factors with high-risk adenomatous polyps (HRAP) or high-risk serrated polyps (HRSP), which may have different causes and therefore implications for screening programs. STUDY: Data from a cross-sectional study of 1384 women undergoing screening-related colonoscopy between 2008 and 2016 were analyzed. Modified Poisson regression models with robust error variance were used to determine the relative risk of developing adenomatous polyps, serrated polyps, HRAPs, and HRSPs associated with pregnancy, menopausal status, and the use of HRT (duration and type). RESULTS: Women that used HRT for ≥6 years were at a significantly lower risk of developing a HRSP [risk ratios (RR): 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.97]. Irrespective of the duration of use, the use of HRT that included progesterone alone or with estrogen was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing a HRSP (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.95). The use HRT with progesterone for ≥6 years was associated with a nonsignificant lower risk of developing a HRSP (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.17-1.04). None of the reproductive factors assessed or HRT were associated with the development of adenomatous polyps or HRAPs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggests that the long-term use of HRT, and therapies that include progesterone are associated with a lower risk of developing HRSPs. These results could have implications for targeted screening for serrated polyps among women.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".