MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224241165 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-22-0160

Metabolically Defined Body Size Phenotypes and Risk of Endometrial Cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

2022· article· en· W4224241165 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
FundersSchool of Public Health, Imperial College LondonHealth and Medical Research FundInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIWorld Cancer Research FundMedical Research CouncilInstitut Gustave-RoussyDeutsche KrebshilfeInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleImperial College LondonAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroCancerfondenBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungLigue Contre le CancerNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchVetenskapsrådetCancer Research UKDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumWorld Health Organization
KeywordsEndometrial cancerCancerAnthropometryProspective cohort studyPhenotypeRisk factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a risk factor for endometrial cancer but whether metabolic dysfunction is associated with endometrial cancer independent of body size is not known. METHODS: The association of metabolically defined body size phenotypes with endometrial cancer risk was investigated in a nested case-control study (817 cases/ 817 controls) within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Concentrations of C-peptide were used to define metabolically healthy (MH; <1st tertile) and metabolically unhealthy (MU; ≥1st tertile) status among the control participants. These metabolic health definitions were combined with normal weight (NW); body mass index (BMI)<25 kg/m2 or waist circumference (WC)<80 cm or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR)<0.8) and overweight (OW; BMI≥25 kg/m2 or WC≥80 cm or WHR≥0.8) status, generating four phenotype groups for each anthropometric measure: (i) MH/NW, (ii) MH/OW, (iii) MU/NW, and (iv) MU/OW. RESULTS: In a multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression model, compared with MH/NW individuals, endometrial cancer risk was higher among those classified as MU/NW [ORWC, 1.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-2.10 and ORWHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.21-2.35] and MU/OW (ORBMI, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.73-3.27; ORWC, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.92-3.77 and ORWHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.32-2.54). MH/OW individuals were also at increased endometrial cancer risk compared with MH/NW individuals (ORWC, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.24-3.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women with metabolic dysfunction appear to have higher risk of endometrial cancer regardless of their body size. However, OW status raises endometrial cancer risk even among women with lower insulin levels, suggesting that obesity-related pathways are relevant for the development of this cancer beyond insulin. IMPACT: Classifying women by metabolic health may be of greater utility in identifying those at higher risk for endometrial cancer than anthropometry per se.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207