Adherence to cancer prevention guidelines and risk of breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy eating patterns and keeping physically active are potentially more important for chronic disease prevention than intake or exclusion of specific food items or nutrients. To this end, many health organizations routinely publish dietary and lifestyle recommendations aimed at preventing chronic disease. Using data from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, we investigated the association between breast cancer risk and adherence to two sets of guidelines specific for cancer prevention, namely the American Cancer Society (ACS) Guidelines and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) Recommendations. At baseline, 49,613 women completed dietary and lifestyle questionnaires and height and weight measurements were taken. During a mean follow-up of 16.6 years, 2,503 incident cases of breast cancer were ascertained. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of meeting each guideline, and number of guidelines met, with breast cancer risk. The two sets of guidelines yielded similar results. Specifically, adherence to all six ACS guidelines was associated with a 31% reduction in breast cancer risk when compared to subjects adhering to at most one guideline (HR=0.69; 95% CI=0.49-0.97); similarly, adherence to six or seven of the WCRF/AICR guidelines was also associated with a 31% reduction in breast cancer risk (HR=0.69; 95% CI=0.47-1.00). Under either classification, meeting each additional guideline was associated with a 4-6% reduction in breast cancer risk. These results suggest that adherence to cancer prevention guidelines is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer.
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) | 0.000 | 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".