MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362534918 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-4176

Abstract 4176: Timing of pregnancy-related factors and breast cancer risk for women across a range of absolute risk

2023· article· en· W4362534918 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jasmine A. McDonald, Yuyan Liao, Esther M. John, Allison W. Kurian, Jeanine M. Genkinger, Saundra S. Buys, John L. Hopper, kConFab Investigators, Mary Beth Terry

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioDemographyAbsolute risk reductionProspective cohort studyProportional hazards modelPregnancyMenarcheOdds ratioConfidence intervalObstetricsCohort studyFamily historyGynecologyCancerInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Studies in women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 suggest that underlying breast cancer (BC) risk modifies the associations between pregnancy-related factors and BC risk. Less is known about whether the associations are modified across a range of predicted absolute BC risk based on age and the extent of BC family history. Objective: Examine the association between pregnancy-related factors and BC risk and modification by predicted absolute BC risk in the Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC) with women enrolled between 1992-2011 and a median 10.0 years of follow-up time. Methods: ProF-SC includes the six international sites of the Breast Cancer Family Registry [USA, Canada, and Australia] and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab). 17,274 women with 943 prospectively ascertained BC cases were eligible for the prospective analysis with 87% of cases self-identifying as non-Hispanic White. Questionnaires at study entry assessed self-reported pregnancy-related factors (parity, number of full-term pregnancies (FTP), age at first FTP, years since last FTP, breastfeeding, and age at menarche). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models with age as a time scale to estimate Hazard Ratios (HR) and the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for each reproductive variable (main effect) and examined modification by predicted absolute risk of BC, measured by a 1-year absolute risk score (continuous) estimated by the BOADICEA (interaction effect). We also examined associations stratified by estrogen receptor (ER) subtype. Results: Women with a first FTP at age ≥30 vs. <20 years had an increased risk of BC (HR=1.49, 95% CI 1.10, 2.02); no other pregnancy-related factors were associated with BC risk. Compared to nulliparous women, the main effect for higher parity was associated with increased ER-negative BC (PARS*≥4 FTP HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.09, 5.01). In contrast, increasing absolute BC risk for women with higher parity was associated with reduced risk of ER-negative BC (PARS*≥4 FTP HRinteraction 0.66, 95% CI 0.48, 0.90; pinteraction=0.01). Increasing absolute BC risk for nulliparous or first FTP at age ≥25 years had a >20% increased risk of ER-negative BC compared to first FTP at age <20 years (pinteraction=0.002); the main effects for nulliparity and first FTP at age ≥25 years and ER-negative BC were null (p-values=0.2-1.0). Compared to nulliparous women, increasing absolute risk for women who were within 5 years of their last FTP was positively associated with ER-negative BC (HRinteraction=1.54, 95% CI 1.03, 2.31); main effects were null (HR=1.00, 95% CI 0.39, 2.54). Conclusion: The association between pregnancy-related factors and BC risk are modified by predicted absolute BC risk, with stronger associations observed for ER-negative BC. Women at higher absolute BC risk may benefit from more frequent BC monitoring following childbirth. Citation Format: Jasmine A. McDonald, Yuyan Liao, Esther M. John, Allison W. Kurian, Jeanine M. Genkinger, Saundra S. Buys, John L. Hopper, kConFab Investigators, Mary Beth Terry. Timing of pregnancy-related factors and breast cancer risk for women across a range of absolute risk. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 4176.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207