MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Additional file 1 of Associations between female lung cancer risk and sex steroid hormones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence on endogenous and exogenous sex steroid hormones

2021· article· en· W6902163011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioHormoneSex steroidLung cancerConfidence intervalSex hormone receptorSteroid hormoneTestosterone (patch)Epidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1 : Table S1. Search strategy (Supplementary Table S1) [29]. Table S2. Characteristics of included studies (Supplementary Table S2) [29]. a. 0 = Cohort, 1 = Case-control; b. 0 = Premenopausal, 1 = Postmenopausal, 2 = Premenopausal/Postmenopausal; c. 0 = Never, 1 = Ever/never; d. 0 = Adenocarcinoma, 1 = NSCLC, 2 = SCLC/NSCLC; e. 0 = Population-based controls, 1 = Hospital-based controls, 2 = population-based + hospital-based controls. Table S3. Quality Assessment According to the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) a (Supplementary Table S3) [29]. a. 0 = no star allocated;1 = one star allocated; 2 = two stars allocated; b. Case-control studies are scored on the exposure of interest, whereas cohort and cross-sectional studies are scored on the outcome of interest. Figure S1. Forest plots for high sex steroid hormone exposure on the risk of lung cancer with studies assessed both endogenous and exogenous sex steroid hormones (Supplementary Figure S1) [29]. a. OR: Odds ratio; b. CI: Confidence interval; c. OC: Oral contraception; d. HRT: Hormone replacement therapy. Figure S2. Forest plots for high sex steroid hormone exposure on the risk of lung cancer with (a) 1987–2007 and (b) 2008–2019 (Supplementary Figure S2) [29]. a. OR: Odds ratio; b. CI: Confidence interval; c. OC: Oral contraception; d. HRT: Hormone replacement therapy. Figure S3. Forest plots for high sex steroid hormone exposure on the risk of lung cancer with (a) Retrospective studies and (b) Prospective studies (Supplementary Figure S3) [29]. a. OR: Odds ratio; b. CI: Confidence interval; c. OC: Oral contraception; d. HRT: Hormone replacement therapy. Figure S4. Forest plots for higher levels of sex steroid hormone exposure on the risk of female lung cancer with (a) Never-smokers and (b) Ever-smokers in different ethnicities (Supplementary Figure S4) [29]. a. OR: Odds ratio; b. CI: Confidence interval. Figure S5. Funnel Plot (Supplementary Figure S5) [29]. Figure S6. Egger’s funnel plot for assessing potential publication bias (Supplementary Figure S6) [29]. Figure S7. Sensitivity Analysis by the Leaving-One-Out Method (Supplementary Figure S7) [29]. Figure S8. The levels of endogenous sex steroid hormone exposure during development among women (Supplementary Figure S8) [29]. Women, with younger age at menarche, older age at menopause, longer reproductive window, longer length of each cycle and reproductive factors, will have higher exposure of cells to endogenous sex steroid hormones over a lifetime.

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)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6900.026

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→