Association of gestational trophoblastic disease with subsequent development of non‐trophoblastic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between gestational trophoblastic disease and the subsequent risk of developing non-trophoblastic cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3084 women with gestational trophoblastic disease and 1 415 812 women with obstetric deliveries in Quebec, Canada, between 1989 and 2021. The main exposure was gestational trophoblastic disease, including hydatidiform moles, invasive moles, and gestational choriocarcinoma. The outcome was development of non-trophoblastic cancer during 33 years of follow-up. We measured the association of gestational trophoblastic disease with non-trophoblastic cancer using adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and tested whether associations were stronger for certain types of cancer or cancers with later onset. RESULTS: The incidence of non-trophoblastic cancer was greater for women with invasive moles (47.1/10 000 person-years) and gestational choriocarcinoma (59.3/10 000 person-years) than hydatidiform moles (18.4/10 000 person-years) and no gestational trophoblastic disease (22.4/10 000 person-years). Gestational choriocarcinoma (HR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.35-4.01; P = 0.002) and invasive moles (HR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.06-3.65; P = 0.033) were associated with an elevated risk of non-trophoblastic cancer compared with no gestational trophoblastic disease, while hydatidiform moles were not. Gestational choriocarcinoma and invasive moles were mainly associated with gynecologic cancer. However, risk of cancer was limited to the short-term period after pregnancy and became similar to no gestational trophoblastic disease by the end of follow-up. CONCLUSION: While invasive moles and gestational choriocarcinoma appear to be associated with the subsequent development of non-trophoblastic cancer, the absolute risk is small and limited to the short-term.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".