MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B083: The associations of breast density, hormone use, family history, reproductive and lifestyle factors with triple negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4391446323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nitya Kumar, Sarah Ehsan, Shahana Banerjee, Claudia Fernandez Perez, Isabelle Lhuilier, Jilian Neuner, Tara-Friebel Klinger, Bindhu Nair, Sara Anjum Niinuma, Shivangi Nampoothiri, Anne Marie McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisBreast cancerFamily historyMedicineOncologyTriple-negative breast cancerInternal medicineCancerGynecologyGerontologyDemographyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) has poor prognosis compared to other breast cancer subtypes. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis examines whether established breast cancer risk factors are associated with TNBC in adult females.Data Sources: Studies were searched on EMBASE, Medline, SCOPUS and grey literature with no limit on the date of publication. The search string included MeSH terms of the exposures of interest and TNBC. References of included studies were also searched. Study Selection: The exposures of interest included parity, breastfeeding, duration of breastfeeding, age at menarche, age at first live birth, oral contraceptive (OCP) use, duration of OCP use, use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), family history, body mass index (BMI), alcohol use, smoking and breast density. Studies that compared exposures of interest between women diagnosed with TNBC versus cancer-free women.Main outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of interest was TNBC. The effect measures, weighted odds ratios, were estimated from random effects models. Sensitivity analyses stratified by menopausal status and using the leave one out meta-analysis (LOOM) method were performed.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and synthesis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Four reviewers independently screened the search results in a blinded manner and conflicts were resolved by discussion. Study quality was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for case control studies and cohort studies. Data extraction was performed independently by four reviewers and one reviewer checked 30% of work of each other reviewer. Odds ratios were extracted and data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model. Results: Thirty-three studies were included. Family history, longer duration of oral contraceptive use, and higher breast density were significantly associated with increased risk for TNBC, and later age at menarche and breastfeeding were protective against TNBC. Later age at first birth was protective against TNBC. Parity, HRT, alcohol, smoking, and BMI were not significantly associated with risk for TNBC. Conclusion: These findings further clarify differences in etiology between ER/PR+HER2- and TNBC, highlighting the need to identify additional actionable risk factors for TNBC to improve prevention and early detection of these poor prognosis breast tumors. Citation Format: Nitya Kumar, Sarah Ehsan, Shahana Banerjee, Claudia Fernandez Perez, Isabelle Lhuilier, Jilian Neuner, Tara-Friebel Klinger, Bindhu Nair, Sara Anjum Niinuma, Shivangi Nampoothiri, Anne Marie McCarthy. The associations of breast density, hormone use, family history, reproductive and lifestyle factors with triple negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Advances in Breast Cancer Research; 2023 Oct 19-22; San Diego, California. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(3 Suppl_1):Abstract nr B083.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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