Joint Effects of Smoking and Body Mass Index on Prostate Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1979 and 1985, a population-based case-control study of cancer at multiple sites was carried out in Montréal. A total of 399 cases with histologically confirmed prostate cancer and 476 population controls, 45-70 years of age, gave face-to-face interviews and provided adequate smoking histories. We analyzed the effects of smoking cigarettes only and of smoking cigars, or pipes, or both, with or without cigarettes, on the risk of prostate cancer. Overall, the associations between smoking cigarettes and prostate cancer were weak and compatible with no effect; the associations with cigar and pipe smoking were stronger. Among men with high body mass index, however, we found appreciable associations between cigarette smoking and prostate cancer risk. A history of ever smoking daily was associated with an odds ratio of 2.31 (95% confidence interval = 1.09-4.89). Risk increased with the amount smoked per day and with the duration of smoking. Taken together, the findings of increased risk associated with cigar and pipe smoking and the findings of increased risk associated with cigarette smoking among obese men suggest that tobacco smoking may be a risk factor for prostate 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".