MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162105747 · doi:10.82308/25897

The effect of hormone replacement therapy on the risk of colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women /

2002· dissertation· en· W7162105747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ilona Csizmadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)EstrogenOdds ratioObservational studyEstrogen replacement therapyColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)Transdermal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis we examine the effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on the risk of colorectal cancer. Also examined are the effects of oral versus transdermal estrogen replacement therapy, methods of defining estrogen exposure, selection bias, and trends in the use of HRT over the last two decades. A nested case-control study was conducted using records from Saskatchewan Health's administrative databases. Information on covariates not available from the databases was collected during interviews, from a subgroup of subjects. Incidence density sampling was used to age match controls (four per case, N = 12,116) to each of 3,059 cases accrued in the province from 1981 to 1998. Short and long durations of HRT use (<5 years and ≥5 years) were associated with odds ratios (OR) of 0.86 (0.76--0.97) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.64--0.86), respectively. Stratification according to history of having had a screening sigmoidoscopy did not eliminate the observed protective effect. Important differences were not seen between more recent HRT use (<5 and <10 years), compared with more distant past use (≥5 and ≥10 years). The use of various definitions of estrogen exposure produced ORs ranging from 0.78 to 0.99 which are similar to results from almost two dozen observational studies conducted over the past two decades indicating that this is an important source of variability that needs to be considered. The study of independent effects of oral and transdermal estrogens revealed a protective effect of transdermal estrogen that was much greater than that of oral estrogen and which has not previously been reported. A protective effect remained when women who had used oral estrogen only were used as the reference group. Data pertaining to lifestyle factors collected by interview appeared not to alter ORs for HRT and colorectal cancer. However, due to extremely low response rates in the interview phase of the study, 30% among cases and 18% among controls, we were unable to conclude whether or not confounding was eliminated. An important finding of research is the strong observed protective effect of transdermal estrogen replacement therapy. This demonstrates the importance of taking into consideration the mode of estrogen delivery in studies where the associations between HRT use and health outcomes are examined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments→French-language works237,207→