Reproductive factors in relation to incidence of lung and colorectal cancers in a Norwegian women cohort: the HUNT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The roles of reproductive factors in the etiology of lung and colorectal cancers, among the most common cancers in women, are unclear. Objective: We aimed to explore whether female reproductive factors were associated with the incidence of lung and colorectal cancers. Methods: We followed up 33 314 cancer-free women who participated in the HUNT Study in Norway from 1995-1997 to 2018. A large panel of reproductive factors were self-reported at baseline. Incident lung and colorectal cancer cases were ascertained from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs after adjustment for important confounders. Results: During a median follow-up interval of 22.2 years, 467 women developed lung cancer (including 169 lung adenocarcinoma), 660 developed colon cancer, and 211 had rectal cancer. Early menarche (≤12 years) was associated with an increased incidence of lung adenocarcinoma (HR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.03). Women with one or no child had an increased colon cancer incidence (HR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54). Hormone therapy appeared to be associated with a decreased incidence of rectal cancer (HR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.44-1.04). Results in the subgroup of postmenopausal women were similar or strengthened. Other reproductive factors were not related to the risk of lung, colon, and rectal cancers. Conclusion: Certain reproductive factors might play a role in the etiology of lung and colorectal cancers. Further investigations are warranted to study if they are causal associations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".