Serum Levels of Copper and Zinc and Survival in Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is emerging interest in the relationship between several serum micronutrients and the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. The relationship between serum zinc and copper levels and breast cancer prognosis is unclear. In our study, we included 583 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between 2008 and 2015 in the region of Szczecin, Poland. In a blood sample obtained before treatment, serum zinc and copper levels were quantified by mass spectroscopy. Each patient was assigned to one of four categories (quartiles) based on the distribution of the elements in the entire cohort. Patients were followed from diagnosis to death over a mean of 10.0 years. The 10-year overall survival was 58.3% for women in the highest and 82.1% for those in the lowest quartile of serum copper/zinc ratio (p < 0.001). The multivariate hazard ratio (HR) for breast cancer death was 2.07 (95% CI 1.17–3.63; p = 0.01) for patients in the highest quartile of serum copper/zinc ratio compared to those in the lowest. There is evidence that the serum zinc level and copper/zinc ratio provide an independent predictive value for overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival after breast cancer diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".