Pre-diagnostic serum metabolome and breast cancer risk: a nested case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolomics offers a promising approach to identify biomarkers for timely intervention and enhanced screening of individuals at increased risk of developing breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a study of 593 female breast cancer cases and 593 matched controls nested in two prospective cohort studies. Mass spectrometry, without liquid chromatography, was used to conduct untargeted metabolomics profiling of serum samples collected, on average, 5.3 years before cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for a one standard deviation increase of metabolite intensities. Partial least squares discriminant analyses were applied to those metabolites significantly associated with breast cancer to develop risk prediction models. RESULTS: Associations were evaluated with a total of 837 metabolites. Twenty-four metabolites were significantly associated with overall breast cancer risk, including 13 associated with decreased risk and 11 associated with increased risk. Putative identities of the metabolites included various amino acids (n = 3), dietary factors (n = 10), fatty acids (n = 2), phosplipids (n = 4), sex hormone derivatives (n = 2), and xenobiotics (n = 3). For example, a metabolite identified as acetyl tributyl citrate, a plasticizer in food wrappings, was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (OR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.07-1.37). Risk prediction models for overall breast cancer and the various subtypes were found to have modest levels of prediction accuracy (area under the curve ranged from 0.60 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Additional studies are needed to confirm the identities of the metabolites and validate their associations with breast cancer risk. Metabolomics should be evaluated in conjunction with other 'omics' technologies for creation of clinically useful risk prediction models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".