Folate Intake and Ovarian Cancer Risk among Women with Endometriosis: A Case–Control Study from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although folate intake has not been associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer overall, studies of other cancer types have suggested that high folate intake may promote carcinogenesis in precancerous lesions. Women with endometriosis (a potential precancerous lesion) have an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer; however, whether high folate intake increases risk in this group is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of six case-control studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium to investigate the association between folate intake and risk of ovarian cancer among women with and without self-reported endometriosis. We included 570 cases/558 controls with and 5,171/7,559 without endometriosis. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for the association between folate intake (dietary, supplemental, and total) and ovarian cancer risk. Finally, we used Mendelian randomization (MR) to evaluate our results using genetic markers as a proxy for folate status. RESULTS: Higher dietary folate intake was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for women with endometriosis [OR, 1.37 (1.01-1.86)] but not for women without endometriosis. There was no association between supplemental folate intake and ovarian cancer risk for women with or without endometriosis. A similar pattern was seen using MR. CONCLUSIONS: High dietary folate intake may be associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer among women with endometriosis. IMPACT: Women with endometriosis with high folate diets may be at increased risk of ovarian cancer. Further research is needed on the potential cancer-promoting effects of folate in this group.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".