MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414700837 · doi:10.1186/s12916-025-04375-6

Assessing the causal and independent impact of parity-related reproductive factors on risk of breast cancer subtypes

2025· article· en· W4414700837 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Claire Prince, Laura D Howe, Eleanor Sanderson, Gemma C. Sharp, Abigail Fraser, Bethan Lloyd‐Lewis, Rebecca C. Richmond

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilAcademy of Medical SciencesCancer Research UKUniversity of BristolGovernment of CanadaGenome CanadaDiabetes UKCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGray FoundationFondation du cancer du sein du QuébecNational Institutes of HealthOvarian Cancer Research FundElizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of BristolBritish Heart FoundationWellcome TrustEuropean CommissionBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsBreast cancerCancerAdverse effectSample size determinationRisk assessmentMeta-analysisMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Observational evidence proposes a protective effect of having children and an early first pregnancy on breast cancer development; however, the causality of this association remains uncertain. Here, we assess whether parity-related reproductive factors impact breast cancer risk independently of each other and other causally related or genetically correlated factors: adiposity, age at menarche, and age at menopause. METHODS: We used genetic data from UK Biobank for reproductive factors and adiposity, and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium for risk of overall, estrogen receptor (ER) positive and negative breast cancer, and breast cancer subtypes. We applied univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MR) to estimate genetically predicted direct effects of ever parous status, ages at first birth and last birth, and number of births on breast cancer risk. RESULTS: We found limited evidence for a genetically predicted protective effect of an earlier age at first birth on breast cancer risk. While the univariable analysis revealed later age at first birth decreased ER-negative breast cancer risk (odds ratio (OR): 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.95 per standard deviation (SD) increase in age at first birth), this effect attenuated with separate adjustment for age at menarche (potential confounder) (OR: 0.83; 0.62, 1.06) and age at menopause (genetically correlated factor) (OR: 0.80; 0.66, 1.01). Furthermore, we found evidence that a later age at first birth decreased HER2-enriched breast cancer risk but only after adjusting for number of births (potential mediator) (OR: 0.28; 0.11, 0.57 per SD increase in age at first birth). In the multivariable analysis, we found little evidence for genetically predicted effects of ever-parous status, age at last birth, or number of births on breast cancer risk; however, analyses of ever-parous status and age at last birth were limited by weak instruments. CONCLUSIONS: This study found minimal evidence of a genetically predicted protective effect of earlier age at first birth on breast cancer risk, while identifying some evidence for a genetically predicted adverse effect on ER-negative breast cancer risk. However, weak instruments limited the multivariable analysis of ever parous status and age at last birth, which may be improved with larger sample sizes.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MedicineSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207