Don't take cancer sitting down
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer survival is associated with considerable physical and psychosocial burden. Broadly accessible, nonpharmacologic measures that may extend disease-free survival, limit comorbid disease, and enhance quality of life are required. Sedentary behavior (too much sitting) is now understood to be a health risk that is additional to, and distinct from, the hazards of too little exercise. Of particular note, it is associated with adiposity, insulin resistance, and markers of inflammation. Therefore, it is plausible that sedentary behavior may contribute to adverse cancer outcomes (disease progression, recurrence, or death) and to the development of comorbid chronic disease. Initial studies indicate that cancer survivors spend two-thirds of their waking hours sitting. Among colorectal cancer survivors, sedentary behavior may contribute to all-cause and disease-specific mortality, weight gain, comorbid cardiovascular disease, and diminished quality of life. There is a need for dose-response evidence, and for a broader understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which prolonged sitting time may affect cancer survivors' health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.021 | 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 teacher head, 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".