Fasting Insulin and Outcome in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Insulin, a member of a family of growth factors that includes insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-II, exerts mitogenic effects on normal and malignant breast epithelial cells, acting via insulin and IGF-I receptors. Because of this and because of its recognized association with obesity, an adverse prognostic factor in breast cancer, we examined the prognostic associations of insulin in early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of 512 women without known diabetes, who had early-stage (T1 to T3, N0 to N1, and M0) breast cancer, was assembled and observed prospectively. Information on traditional prognostic factors and body size was collected, and fasting blood was obtained. RESULTS: Fasting insulin was associated with distant recurrence and death; the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for those in the highest (> 51.9 pmol/L) versus the lowest (< 27.0 pmol/L) insulin quartile were 2.0 (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.3) and 3.1 (95% CI, 1.7 to 5.7), respectively. There was some evidence to suggest that the association of insulin with breast cancer outcomes may be nonlinear. Insulin was correlated with body mass index (Spearman r = 0.59, P < .001), which, in turn, was associated with distant recurrence and death (P < .001). In multivariate analyses that included fasting insulin and available tumor- and treatment-related variables, adjusted hazard ratios for the upper versus lower insulin quartile were 2.1 (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.6) and 3.3 (95% CI, 1.5 to 7.0) for distant recurrence and death, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fasting insulin level is associated with outcome in women with early breast cancer. High levels of fasting insulin identify women with poor outcomes in whom more effective treatment strategies should be explored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".