The unique risk factor profile of triple-negative breast cancer: a comprehensive meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has a poor prognosis compared with other breast cancer subtypes. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines whether known risk factors for breast cancer are also associated with TNBC in adult women. METHODS: EMBASE, Medline, SCOPUS, and gray literature were queried with no limit on the date or language of publication. The exposures of interest included parity, breastfeeding, duration of breastfeeding, age at menarche, age at first live birth, oral contraceptive (OC) use, duration of OC use, use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), family history, body mass index (BMI), alcohol use, smoking, and breast density. The main outcome of interest was TNBC. Study quality was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for case control studies and cohort studies. We estimated weighted odds ratios from random effects models to study the exposure-outcome associations. Protocol was registered under the number: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021254594. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included. Family history, longer duration of OC use, and higher breast density were significantly associated with increased risk for TNBC, whereas later age at menarche, later age at first birth, and breastfeeding were protective against TNBC. Parity, MHT, alcohol, smoking, and BMI were not significantly associated with TNBC overall, but higher parity was associated with higher risk among Black women. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that TNBC has a distinct risk factor profile compared with overall breast cancer. This can be the foundational work in identification of actionable TNBC risk factors to improve prevention and early detection of these poor prognosis breast tumors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".