Energy Intake, Physical Activity, Energy Balance, and Cancer: Epidemiologic Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy intake, physical activity, and obesity are modifiable lifestyle factors. This chapter reviews and summarizes the epidemiologic evidence on the relation of energy intake, physical activity, and obesity to cancer. High energy intake may increase the risk of cancers of colon-rectum, prostate (especially advanced prostate cancer), and breast. However, because physical activity, body size, and metabolic efficiency are highly related to total energy intake and expenditure, it is difficult to assess the independent effect of energy intake on cancer risk. There are sufficient evidences to support a role of physical activity in preventing cancers of the colon and breast, whereas the association is stronger in men than in women for colon cancer and in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women for breast cancer. The evidence also suggests that physical activity likely reduces the risk of cancers of endometrium, lung, and prostate (to a lesser extent). On the other hand, there is little or no evidence that the risk of rectal cancer is related to physical activity, whereas the results have been inconsistent regarding the association between physical activity and the risks of cancers of pancreas, ovary and kidney. Epidemiologic studies provide sufficient evidence that obesity is a risk factor for both cancer incidence and mortality. The evidence supports strong links of obesity with the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast (in postmenopausal women), endometrium, kidney (renal cell), and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Epidemiologic evidence also indicates that obesity is probably related to cancers of the pancreas, liver, and gallbladder, and aggressive prostate cancer, while it seems that obesity is not associated with lung cancer. The role of obesity in other cancer risks is unclear.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".