Association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies with over two million individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims \nDespite reports of an elevated risk of breast cancer associated with antipsychotic use in women, existing evidence remains inconclusive. We aimed to examine existing observational data in the literature and determine this hypothesised association. \n \nMethods \nWe searched Embase, PubMed and Web of Science™ databases on 27 January 2022 for articles reporting relevant cohort or case-control studies published since inception, supplemented with hand searches of the reference lists of the included articles. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We generated the pooled odds ratio (OR) and pooled hazard ratio (HR) using a random-effects model to quantify the association. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022307913). \n \nResults \nNine observational studies, including five cohort and four case-control studies, were eventually included for review (N = 2 031 380) and seven for meta-analysis (N = 1 557 013). All included studies were rated as high-quality (seven to nine stars). Six studies reported a significant association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer, and a stronger association was reported when a greater extent of antipsychotic use, e.g. longer duration, was operationalised as the exposure. Pooled estimates of HRs extracted from cohort studies and ORs from case-control studies were 1.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.73] and 1.37 (95% CI 0.90–2.09), suggesting a moderate association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer. \n \nConclusions \nAntipsychotic use is moderately associated with breast cancer, possibly mediated by prolactin-elevating properties of certain medications. This risk should be weighed against the potential treatment effects for a balanced prescription decision.
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 | 0.023 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".