MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210254681 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4646

Could Perimenopausal Estrogen Prevent Breast Cancer? Exploring the Differential Effects of Estrogen-Only Versus Combined Hormone Replacement Therapy

2022· review· en· W4210254681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaac Manyonda, Vikram Talaulikar, Roxanna Pirhadi, John H. Ward, Dibyesh Banerjee, Joseph Onwude

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProgestogenBreast cancerHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)EstrogenObservational studyGynecologyMenopauseRandomized controlled trialHormone therapyWomen's Health InitiativePlaceboIncidence (geometry)OncologyCancerInternal medicineObstetricsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is the commonest cancer among women in the western world, accounting for up to 30% of all cancers in women. There is a long-standing controversy about the potential link to hormone replacement therapy (HRT), with large observational studies suggesting that HRT increases the risk, while the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a prospective, randomized placebo-controlled trial, has reported several times over a period of 20 years that combined (estrogen and progestogen) HRT increases the risk, while estrogen-only HRT given to women who have had a prior hysterectomy, is associated with a significantly reduced risk of developing breast cancer. Evidence from the randomized trial shows a significant reduction in both incidence of and mortality from breast cancer in women who took estrogen replacement therapy; this message needs to be presented clearly and robustly so that it can help women with decision making when considering HRT for menopause.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207