MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407964309 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-24-1143

Patterns of Associations with Epidemiologic Factors by High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Gene Expression Subtypes

2025· article· en· W4407964309 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay J. Collin, Kara L. Cushing‐Haugen, Kathryn L. Terry, Ellen L. Goode, Anna H. Wu, Holly R. Harris, Naoko Sasamoto, Daniel W. Cramer, Francesmary Modugno, Esther Elishaev, Zhuxuan Fu, Kirsten B. Moysich, Peter A. Fasching, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Usha Menon, Aleksandra Gentry‐Maharaj, Simon A. Gayther, Nicolas Wentzensen, Marc T. Goodman, Joshy George, Aline Talhouk, Michael S. Anglesio, Susan J. Ramus, David D.L. Bowtell, Shelley S. Tworoger, Joellen M. Schildkraut, Penelope M. Webb, Jennifer A. Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsOvarian cancerOncologyMedicineSerous fluidInternal medicineFamily historyCancerMenarcheBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) comprise four distinct molecular subtypes based on mRNA expression patterns, with differential survival. Understanding risk factor associations is important to elucidate the etiology of HGSC. We investigated associations between different epidemiologic risk factors and HGSC molecular subtypes. METHODS: We pooled data from 11 case-control studies with epidemiologic and tumor gene expression data from custom NanoString CodeSets developed through a collaboration within the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. The PrOTYPE-validated NanoString-based 55-gene classifier was used to assign HGSC gene expression subtypes. We examined associations between epidemiologic factors and HGSC subtypes in 2,070 cases and 16,633 controls using multivariable-adjusted polytomous regression models. RESULTS: Among the 2,070 HGSC cases, 556 (27%) were classified as C1.MES, 340 (16%) as C5.PRO, 538 (26%) as C2.IMM, and 636 (31%) as C4.DIF. The key factors, including oral contraceptive use, parity, breastfeeding, and family history of ovarian cancer, were similarly associated with all subtypes. Heterogeneity was observed for several factors. Former smoking [OR = 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03, 1.51] and genital powder use (OR = 1.42; 95% CI = 1.08, 1.86) were uniquely associated with C2.IMM. History of endometriosis was associated with C5.PRO (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.98, 2.16) and C4.DIF (OR = 1.27; 95% CI = 0.94, 1.71) only. Family history of breast cancer (OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.16, 1.78) and current smoking (OR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.11, 1.76) were associated with C4.DIF only. CONCLUSIONS: This study observed heterogeneous associations of epidemiologic and modifiable factors with HGSC molecular subtypes. IMPACT: The different patterns of associations may provide key information about the etiology of the four subtypes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207