MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221039444 · doi:10.4048/jbc.2022.25.e11

The Association of Obstructive Sleep Apnea With Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4221039444 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Breast Cancer · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioInternal medicineMeta-analysisSubgroup analysisObstructive sleep apneaCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Emerging evidence from animal models suggests that intermittent hypoxia due to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a risk factor for breast cancer. Despite their biological plausibility, human epidemiological studies have reported conflicting results. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to delineate this relationship. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for eligible studies from inception until June 6, 2021. Two reviewers selected randomized trials or observational studies reporting the association between OSA and breast cancer incidence compared with those without OSA. Two reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We pooled the maximally covariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) using a random-effects inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis and performed pre-specified subgroup analyses. RESULTS: We included six studies out of 1,707 records, comprising a combined cohort of 5,165,200 patients. All studies used the International Classification of Diseases codes to classify OSA and breast cancer. OSA patients had a 36% increased breast cancer risk (HR, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.80; N = 6, I² = 96%) compared to those without OSA. Most studies adjusted for confounders, such as age, sex, obesity, diabetes mellitus, alcohol use, and hypertension. Subgroup analyses for studies with (1) multivariate adjustment and (2) at least five years of follow-up yielded HRs of 1.35 (95% CI, 0.98-1.87; N = 5, I² = 96%) and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.14-2.18; N = 4; I² = 90%), respectively. One Mendelian randomization study suggested a causal relationship, with a two-fold increase in the odds of breast cancer in patients with OSA. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested that OSA is a risk factor for breast cancer. Future studies should explore the dose-response relationship between OSA and breast cancer, and whether treatment may mitigate breast cancer risk or progression.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.322 · 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