Menopausal hormone therapy: assessing associations with breast and colorectal cancers by familial risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menopausal users of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are at increased breast cancer risk and decreased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk compared with individuals who have never used HRT, but these opposing associations may differ by familial risk of breast cancer and CRC. We harmonized data from 3 cohorts and generated separate breast cancer and CRC familial risk scores based on cancer family history. We defined moderate or strong family history as a risk score of 0.4 or higher, where 0.4 was equivalent to a 50-year-old woman with 1 parent diagnosed with either breast cancer or CRC at 55 years of age. Of 24 486 women assessed, 1243 and 405 were diagnosed with incident breast cancer and CRC, respectively. For breast cancer, menopausal HRT ever use versus never use hazard ratios were 1.27 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.45) for a breast cancer familial risk score below 0.4 and 1.01 (95% CI = 0.82 to 1.25) for a breast cancer familial risk score of 0.4 or higher (Pdifference = .08). For CRC, menopausal HRT hazard ratios were 0.63 (95% CI = 0.50 to 0.78) for a CRC familial risk score below 0.4 and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.73 to 2.00) for a CRC familial risk score of 0.4 or higher (Pdifference = .03). Associations with menopausal HRT use that apply to the general population may not hold for women at moderate or strong familial risk of these cancers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".