MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220863164 · doi:10.1002/cncr.34208

Aromatase inhibitors and the incidence of Parkinson disease: A population‐based cohort study

2022· article· en· W4220863164 on OpenAlexaff
Farzin Khosrow‐Khavar, Laurent Azoulay, Jean‐Louis Montastruc, François Montastruc, Christel Renoux

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTamoxifenBreast cancerHazard ratioInternal medicineOncologyProportional hazards modelPopulationCohort studyGynecologyCohortIncidence (geometry)ExemestaneCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting. Some observational studies have raised concerns that tamoxifen may be associated with an increased risk of Parkinson disease (PD). However, no studies have directly compared the risk of PD between AIs and tamoxifen in women diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, the authors assembled a cohort of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and newly treated with either AIs or tamoxifen between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2017. Patients were followed 1 year after treatment initiation (ie, a 1-year lag) until an incident diagnosis of PD or were censored at death from any cause, the date of transfer out of the practice, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2018). Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weights were used to estimate weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PD comparing AIs with tamoxifen and accounting for more than 30 confounders. RESULTS: In all, 30,140 women with nonmetastatic breast cancer were identified: 13,838 initiated AIs, and 16,302 initiated tamoxifen. Compared with tamoxifen, AIs were not associated with an increased risk of PD (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.60-1.47). Consistent results were observed across all secondary and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this large observational study, the use of AIs, in comparison with tamoxifen, was not associated with an increased risk of PD in women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting. LAY SUMMARY: Previous studies have indicated that tamoxifen may increase the risk of Parkinson disease in the treatment of breast cancer. However, no studies have directly compared the risk of Parkinson disease between aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen. This study included 30,140 women diagnosed with breast cancer and treated with aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen. Overall, compared with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors were not associated with an increased risk of Parkinson disease in women diagnosed with breast cancer. This study provides an important addition to the comparative safety profile of aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen in the treatment of breast 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207