Influence of Physical Activity in Different Age and Life Periods on the Risk of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".