Reproductive factors, oral contraceptives and risk of
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A study of 361 female melanoma patients and age matched controls was conducted in the four western provinces of Canada. Analysis of reproductive factors showed a significant negative association between number of livebirths and risk of melanoma. The relationship persisted for superficial spreading melanomas after adjustment for host pigmentation factors, freckling, and educational status. An inverse association between bilateral oophorectomy and risk of superficial spreading melanoma was also seen. No association was found between risk of melanoma and age at first birth, age at menarche and age at natural menopause. No association was found between risk of superficial spreading or nodular melanoma and use of either oral contraceptives or menopausal oestrogens. Several studies have examined the putative relationship between use of exogenous estrogens and risk of malignant melanoma. Holly et al. (1983) found women using oral contraceptives for 5 or more years have an elevated risk of superficial spreading melanomas. Adam et al. (1981) found a suggestion of increased risk of melanoma in British women using oral contraceptives for more than 5 years, although the increase was not statistically significant. A further study of California women (Beral et al., 1977) found a higher rate of melanoma in women who used oral contraceptives; most pronounced in women with more than 4 years duration of use. Beral et al. (1984) found an elevated risk of melanoma in women who used oral contraceptives for 5 years or more beginning at least 10 years prior to diagnosis of the tumour. A number of other studies however have found no consistent association between use of oral contraceptives and risk of melanoma (Bain et al.,
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".