Effect of alcohol consumption on breast cancer: probabilistic bias analysis for adjustment of exposure misclassification bias and confounders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of alcohol consumption on breast cancer, adjusting for alcohol consumption misclassification bias and confounders. METHODS: This was a case-control study of 932 women with breast cancer and 1000 healthy control. Using probabilistic bias analysis method, the association between alcohol consumption and breast cancer was adjusted for the misclassification bias of alcohol consumption as well as a minimally sufficient set of adjustment of confounders derived from a causal directed acyclic graph. Population attributable fraction was estimated using the Miettinen's Formula. RESULTS: Based on the conventional logistic regression model, the odds ratio estimate between alcohol consumption and breast cancer was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.91). However, the adjusted estimates of odds ratio based on the probabilistic bias analysis ranged from 1.82 to 2.29 for non-differential and from 1.93 to 5.67 for differential misclassification. Population attributable fraction ranged from 1.51 to 2.57% using non-differential bias analysis and 1.54-3.56% based on differential bias analysis. CONCLUSION: A marked measurement error was in self-reported alcohol consumption so after correcting misclassification bias, no evidence against independence between alcohol consumption and breast cancer changed to a substantial positive 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 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 | 0.107 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".