MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391466284 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000036831

The impact of BMI on breast cancer – an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4391466284 on OpenAlex
Nikolaos Tzenios, Mary E. Tazanios, Mohamad Chahine

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMeta-analysisSystematic reviewOverweightChecklistCancerMEDLINEBody mass indexScopusInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most frequent form of cancer in women all over the world. It is the main cause of cancer death and the most often diagnosed cancer in women in 140 of the world's 184 countries. The link between breast cancer risk and body mass index (BMI) has gotten increasing attention in recent years, although the results are still debatable. Therefore, the current systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the impact of BMI on breast cancer. METHODS: The current study was carried out as a systematic review and meta-analysis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We systematically searched Cochrane, Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases to identify eligible articles impact of BMI on breast cancer with the appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The Newcastle-Ottawa checklist was used for the risk of assessment for the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included in the current review, which met the selection criteria of the current review. Among included 46 studies in this review, 50% (n = 23) of the studies found the HER2 type of breast cancer followed by triple-negative and HR-positive. The obesity was significantly higher in the case group compared with the control group (P < .001). Heterogeneity between the 14 studies is medium (I2 = 72%). In this review, there was no significant relation between overweight and breast cancer in women (P > .05). Heterogenecity between the 14 studies is medium (I2 = 89%). However, after removing the publication bias a significant relation between overweightness and breast cancer in women (P = .0005) was observed. CONCLUSION: Obese breast cancer patients are a specific type of patient. They are more likely to develop cancer. Their need to surgery and radiation may cause greater difficulties. Obesity and overweight in women greatly increase the risk of breast cancer, according to the findings of the current meta-analysis. To confirm these findings and understand the pathogenic pathways, more research is required.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.358 · 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