MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255497483 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-54761/v2

Risk factors for breast cancer development by tumor characteristics among women with benign breast disease

2021· preprint· en· W4255497483 on OpenAlexaff
Jonine D. Figueroa, Gretchen L. Gierach, Máire A. Duggan, Shaoqi Fan, Ruth M. Pfeiffer, Yihong Wang, Roni T. Falk, Olivier Loudig, Mustapha Abubakar, Mindy Ginsberg, Teresa M. Kimes, Kathryn Richert-Boe, Thomas Rohan

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteWellcome TrustBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsBreast cancerDiseaseMedicineOncologyBreast tumorInternal medicineBreast diseaseCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Among women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, 30% have a prior diagnosis of benign breast disease (BBD). Thus, it is important to identify factors among BBD patients that elevate invasive cancer risk. In the general population, risk factors differ in their associations by clinical pathologic features; however, whether women with BBD show etiologic heterogeneity in the types of breast cancers they develop remains unknown. Methods: Using a nested case-control study of BBD and breast cancer risk conducted in a community healthcare plan (Kaiser Permanente Northwest), we assessed relationships of histologic features in BBD biopsies and patient characteristics with subsequent breast cancer risk and tested for heterogeneity of associations by estrogen receptor (ER) status, tumor grade and size. The study included 514 invasive breast cancer cases (median follow-up of 9 years post-BBD diagnosis) and 514 matched controls, diagnosed with proliferative or non-proliferative BBD between 1971-2006, with follow-up through mid-2015. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using multivariable polytomous logistic regression models. Results : Breast cancers were predominantly ER-positive (86%), well- or moderately-differentiated (73%), small (74% <20mm) and stage I/II (91%). Compared to patients with non-proliferative BBD, proliferative BBD with atypia conferred risk for ER-positive (OR=5.48, 95%CI=2.14-14.01) with only one ER-negative case); p-heterogeneity=0.45. Presence of columnar cell lesions (CCLs) at BBD diagnosis was associated with a 1.5-fold increase in risk of both ER-positive and ER-negative tumors, with a 2-fold increase (95%CI=1.21-3.58) observed among postmenopausal women (56%), independent of proliferative BBD status with and without atypia. We did not identify statistically significant differences in risk factor associations by tumor grade or size. Conclusion : Most tumors that developed after a BBD diagnosis in this cohort were highly treatable low-stage ER-positive tumors. CCL in BBD biopsies may be associated with moderately increased risk, independent of BBD histology, and irrespective of ER status.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207