Sex hormones and risk of lung and colorectal cancers in women: a Mendelian randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The roles of sex hormones such as estradiol, testosterone, and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) in the etiology of lung and colorectal cancers in women, among the most common cancers after breast cancer, are unclear. This Mendelian randomization (MR) study evaluated such potential causal associations in women of European ancestry. We used summary statistics data from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) on sex hormones and from the Trøndelag Health (HUNT) Study and large consortia on cancers. There was suggestive evidence of genetically predicted 1-standard deviation increase in total testosterone levels being associated with a lower risk of lung non-adenocarcinoma (hazard ratio (HR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.98) in the HUNT Study. However, this was not confirmed by using data from a larger consortium. In general, we did not find convincing evidence to support a causal role of sex hormones on risk of lung and colorectal cancers in women of European ancestry.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".