MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409480276 · doi:10.1186/s13058-025-01995-x

Central and peripheral adiposity and premenopausal breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of 440,179 women

2025· article· en· W4409480276 on OpenAlexaff
Minouk J. Schoemaker, Taylor D. Ellington, Hazel B. Nichols, Lauren B. Wright, Michael E. Jones, Katie M. O’Brien, Clarice R. Weinberg, Hans‐Olov Adami, Laura Baglietto, Kimberly A. Bertrand, Yu Chen, Jessica Clague DeHart, A. Heather Eliassen, Graham G. Giles, Serena C. Houghton, Victoria A. Kirsh, Roger L. Milne, Julie R. Palmer, Hannah Lui Park, Thomas E. Rohan, Gianluca Severi, Xiao-Ou Shu, Rulla M. Tamimi, Lars J. Vatten, Elisabete Weiderpass, Walter C. Willett, Anne Zeleniuch‐Jacquotte, Wei Zheng, Dale P. Sandler, Anthony J Swerdlow

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCenters for Disease Control and PreventionSusan G. KomenWorld Health OrganizationBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSurgical oncologyBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicineGynecologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Among premenopausal women, higher body mass index (BMI) is associated with lower breast cancer risk, although the underlying mechanisms are unclear. Investigating adiposity distribution may help clarify impacts on breast cancer risk. This study was initiated to investigate associations of central and peripheral adiposity with premenopausal breast cancer risk overall and by other risk factors and breast cancer characteristics. METHODS: We used individual-level data from 14 prospective cohort studies to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for premenopausal breast cancer using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analyses included 440,179 women followed for a median of 7.5 years (interquartile range: 4.0-11.3) between 1976 and 2017, with 6,779 incident premenopausal breast cancers. RESULTS: All central adiposity measures were inversely associated with breast cancer risk overall when not controlling for BMI (e.g. for waist circumference, HR per 10 cm increase: 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-0.94) whereas in models adjusting for BMI, these measures were no longer associated with risk (e.g. for waist circumference: HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.03). This finding was consistent across age categories, with some evidence that BMI-adjusted associations differed by breast cancer subtype. Inverse associations for in situ breast cancer were observed with waist-to-height and waist-to-hip ratios and a positive association was observed for oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer with hip circumference (HR per 10 cm increase: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.10-1.14). For luminal B, HER2-positive breast cancer, we observed an inverse association with hip circumference (HR per 10 cm: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71-0.98), but positive associations with waist circumference (HR per 10 cm: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.36), waist-to-hip ratio (HR per 0.1 units: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.15-1.45) and waist-to height ratio (HR per 0.1 units: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.17-1.84). CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses did not support an association between central adiposity and overall premenopausal breast cancer risk after adjustment for BMI. However, our findings suggest associations might differ by breast cancer hormone receptor and intrinsic 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.347 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast Cancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207