MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402326592 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djae210

Understanding risk factors for endometrial cancer in young women

2024· article· en· W4402326592 on OpenAlexafffund
Noah C. Peeri, Kimberly A. Bertrand, Renhua Na, Immaculata De Vivo, Veronica Wendy Setiawan, Venkatraman Seshan, Laia Alemany, Yu Chen, Megan A. Clarke, Tess V. Clendenen, Linda S. Cook, Laura Costas, Luigino Dal Maso, Jo L. Freudenheim, Christine M. Friedenreich, Gretchen L. Gierach, Marc T. Goodman, Carlo La Vecchia, Fabio Levi, Marta López-Querol, Lingeng Lu, Kirsten B. Moysich, George L. Mutter, Jeffin Naduparambil, Eva Negri, Kelli O’Connell, Tracy A. O’Mara, Julie R. Palmer, Fabio Parazzini, Kathryn L. Penney, Stacey Petruzella, Peggy Reynolds, Fulvio Ricceri, Harvey A. Risch, Thomas E. Rohan, Carlotta Sacerdote, Sven Sandin, Xiao-Ou Shu, Rachael Z. Stolzenberg‐Solomon, Penelope M. Webb, Nicolas Wentzensen, Lynne R. Wilkens, Wanghong Xu, Herbert Yu, Anne Zeleniuch‐Jacquotte, Wei Zheng, Xingyi Guo, Loren Lipworth, Mengmeng Du

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Cancer InstituteEuropean Regional Development FundInstituto de Salud Carlos IIICancer Council TasmaniaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroU.S. Public Health ServiceCalifornia Breast Cancer Research ProgramCenters for Disease Control and PreventionVetenskapsrådetMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadMedical Research Council CanadaMedical Research CouncilAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchGeneralitat de CatalunyaNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungCanada Research ChairsCanadian Breast Cancer Research AllianceNova Scotia Department of Health and WellnessYork UniversityCentres de Recerca de CatalunyaFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleCanadian Cancer SocietyMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerBody mass indexMenarcheOdds ratioGynecologyPopulationRisk factorConfidence intervalEpidemiologyMenopauseDemographyCancerObstetricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society recommends physicians inform average-risk women about endometrial cancer risk on reaching menopause, but new diagnoses are rising fastest in women aged younger than 50 years. Educating these younger women about endometrial cancer risks requires knowledge of risk factors. However, endometrial cancer in young women is rare and challenging to study in single study populations. METHODS: We included 13 846 incident endometrial cancer patients (1639 aged younger than 50 years) and 30 569 matched control individuals from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium. We used generalized linear models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 6 risk factors and endometrial cancer risk. We created a risk score to evaluate the combined associations and population attributable fractions for these factors. RESULTS: In younger and older women, we observed positive associations with body mass index and diabetes and inverse associations with age at menarche, oral contraceptive use, and parity. Current smoking was associated with reduced risk only in women aged 50 years and older (Phet < .01). Body mass index was the strongest risk factor (OR≥35 vs<25 kg/m2 = 5.57, 95% CI = 4.33 to 7.16, for ages younger than 50 years; OR≥35 vs<25 kg/m2 = 4.68, 95% CI = 4.30 to 5.09, for ages 50 years and older; Phet = .14). Possessing at least 4 risk factors was associated with approximately ninefold increased risk in women aged younger than 50 years and approximately fourfold increased risk in women aged 50 years and older (Phet < .01). Together, 59.1% of endometrial cancer in women aged younger than 50 years and 55.6% in women aged 50 years and older were attributable to these factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm younger and older women share common endometrial cancer risk factors. Early educational efforts centered on these factors may help mitigate the rising endometrial cancer burden in young women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207