MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4318578198 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2453698/v1

Impact of hormone replacement therapy on all-cause and cancer-specific mortality in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and dose‒response meta-analysis of observational studies

2023· review· en· W4318578198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kefeng Liu, Yazhou He, Xianzhuo Zhang, Yongjie Yang, Shusen Sun, Zubing Mei, Jie Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisHazard ratioInternal medicineColorectal cancerOncologyCohort studyHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Cochrane LibraryCohortCancerConfidence intervalTestosterone (patch)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality and all-cause mortality remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and dose‒response meta-analysis to determine the effects of HRT on CRC mortality and all-cause mortality. Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases for all relevant studies published until June 2022 to investigate the effects of HRT exposure on survival rates for patients with CRC. Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated THE risk of bias among the studies using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale. To examine a potential nonlinear relationship between the year of HRT use and CRC mortality, we performed a two-stage random effects dose‒response meta-analysis. RESULTS Ten cohort studies encompassing 480,628 individuals were included. The meta-analysis revealed that HRT was inversely associated with the risk of CRC mortality [hazard ratios (HR) = 0.77, 95% CI (0.68, 0.87), I2 = 69.5%, P < 0.05]. Pooled results from seven cohort studies revealed a significant association between HRT and the risk of all-cause mortality [HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.54, 0.92), I2 = 89.6%, p < 0.05]. A linear (P for nonlinearity = 0.34) dose‒response analysis showed a 3% decrease in the risk of CRC for each additional year of HRT use; this decrease was significant [HR = 0.97, 95% CI(0.94, 0.99), P < 0.05]. An additional linear (P for nonlinearity = 0.88) dose‒response analysis showed a nonsignificantly decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality for each additional year of HRT use. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that the use of HRT is inversely associated with all-cause and colorectal cancer mortality, thus causing a significant decrease in mortality rates over time. Further studies are warranted to confirm this association.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.044
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.674
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.082 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→