MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of Physical Activity in Different Age and Life Periods on the Risk of Breast Cancer

2001· article· en· W1991418239 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerOdds ratioMedicineConfidence intervalMenopausePhysical activityCancerPopulationDemographyGerontologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a population-based case-control study of 1,237 incident breast cancer cases and 1,241 controls in Alberta between 1995 and 1997 to examine the effect of physical activity performed at different ages and life periods on breast cancer risk. In this study, we measured all types of physical activity done throughout life with a questionnaire developed and tested specifically for this study. We found that breast cancer risk was most associated with a risk reduction for activity done later in life, particularly between menopause and the reference year, for which we observed an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 0.52-0.95). We also stratified the study participants into four categories according to their patterns of physical activity performed before and after menopause. For the women who sustained physical activity throughout life vs those who were never active, we found an odds ratio of 0.58 (95% confidence interval = 0.41-0.83). This study suggests that sustained activity throughout life and particularly activity done later in life may have the most benefit in reducing breast cancer risk.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.314 · 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