MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pregnancy-Related Factors and Breast Cancer Risk for Women Across a Range of Familial Risk

2024· article· en· W4401882804 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jasmine A. McDonald, Yuyan Liao, Julia A. Knight, Esther M. John, Allison W. Kurian, Mary Daly, Saundra S. Buys, Yun Huang, Caren J. Frost, Irene L. Andrulis, Sarah V. Colonna, Michael Friedländer, John L. Hopper, Wendy K. Chung, Jeanine M. Genkinger, Robert J. MacInnis, Mary Beth Terry, David J. Amor, Lesley Andrews, Yoland Antill, Rosemary L. Balleine, Jonathan Beesley, Ian Bennett, Michael Bogwitz, Simon Bodek, Leon Botes, Meagan Brennan, Michael F. Buckley, Jo Burke, Phyllis Butow, Liz Caldon, Ian Campbell, Michelle Cao, Anannya Chakrabarti, Deepa Chauhan, Manisha Chauhan, Georgia Chenevix‐Trench, Alice Christian, Paul R. Cohen, Alison Colley, Ashley Crook, James Cui, Eliza Courtney, Margaret C. Cummings, Sarah‐Jane Dawson, Anna DeFazio, Martin Delatycki, Rebecca Dickson, Joanne Dixon, Stacey L. Edwards, Gelareh Farshid, Andrew Fellows, Georgina Fenton, Michael Field, James M. Flanagan, Peter C.C. Fong, Laura Forrest, Stephen Fox, Juliet D. French, Clara Gaff, Mike Gattas, Peter George, Sian Greening, Marion Harris, Stewart Hart, Philip Harraka, Cass Hoskins, Clare Hunt, Paul A. James, Mark A. Jenkins, Alexa Kidd, Judy Kirk, Jessica Koehler, James Kollias, Sunil R. Lakhani, Mitchell Lawrence, Jason S. Lee, Shuai Li, Geoffrey J. Lindeman, Jocelyn Lippey, Lara Lipton, Liz Lobb, Sherene Loi, Graham J. Mann, Deborah J. Marsh, Sue Anne McLachlan, Bettina Meiser, Roger L. Milne, Sophie Nightingale, Shona O’Connell, Sarah O’Sullivan, David Gallego‐Ortega, Nick Pachter, Jia‐Min Pang, Gargi Pathak, Briony Patterson, Amy Pearn, Ellen Pieper, Susan Ramus, Edwina Rickard, Abi Ragunathan, Bridget A. Robinson, Mona Saleh, Anita Skandarajah, Elizabeth Salisbury, Christobel Saunders, Jodi M. Saunus, Peter Savas, Rodney J. Scott, Clare L. Scott, Adrienne Sexton, Joanne Shaw, Andrew N. Shelling, Shweta Srinivasa, Peter T. Simpson, Melissa C. Southey, Amanda Spurdle, Jessica Taylor, Renea A. Taylor, Heather Thorne, Alison Trainer, Kathy Tucker, Jane E. Visvader, Logan C. Walker, Rachael Williams, Ingrid Winship, Mary Ann Young, Milita Zaheed

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstitutePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerFamily historyHazard ratioDemographyBreastfeedingPregnancyCohort studyCohortProportional hazards modelProspective cohort studyGynecologyObstetricsCancerInternal medicineConfidence intervalPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Few studies have investigated whether the associations between pregnancy-related factors and breast cancer (BC) risk differ by underlying BC susceptibility. Evidence regarding variation in BC risk is critical to understanding BC causes and for developing effective risk-based screening guidelines. Objective: To examine the association between pregnancy-related factors and BC risk, including modification by a of BC where scores are based on age and BC family history. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included participants from the prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC), which includes the 6 sites of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (US, Canada, and Australia) and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium (Australia). Analyses were performed in a cohort of women enrolled from 1992 to 2011 without any personal history of BC who were followed up through 2017 with a median (range) follow-up of 10 (1-23) years. Data were analyzed from March 1992 to March 2017. Exposures: Parity, number of full-term pregnancies (FTP), age at first FTP, years since last FTP, and breastfeeding. Main Outcomes and Measures: BC diagnoses were obtained through self-report or report by a first-degree relative and confirmed through pathology and data linkages. Cox proportional hazards regression models estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for each exposure, examining modification by PARS of BC. Differences were assessed by estrogen receptor (ER) subtype. Results: The study included 17 274 women (mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.1] years; 791 African American or Black participants [4.6%], 1399 Hispanic or Latinx participants [8.2%], and 13 790 White participants [80.7%]) with 943 prospectively ascertained BC cases. Compared with nulliparous women, BC risk was higher after a recent pregnancy for those women with higher PARS (last FTP 0-5 years HR for interaction, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.07; P for interaction < .001). Associations between other exposures were limited to ER-negative disease. ER-negative BC was positively associated with increasing PARS and increasing years since last FTP (P for interaction < .001) with higher risk for recent pregnancy vs nulliparous women (last FTP 0-5 years HR for interaction, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.03-2.31). ER-negative BC was positively associated with increasing PARS and being aged 20 years or older vs less than 20 years at first FTP (P for interaction = .002) and inversely associated with multiparity vs nulliparity (P for interaction = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of women with no prior BC diagnoses, associations between pregnancy-related factors and BC risk were modified by PARS, with greater associations observed for ER-negative BC.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207