Case‐control study of anthropometric measures and prostate cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population-based case-control study of 988 stage T2 or greater prostate cancer cases and 1063 controls was conducted in Alberta from November 1997 to December 2000 to examine the influence of anthropometric risk factors on the risk of prostate cancer using several different measures. An in-person interview was conducted, and all anthropometric measurements were taken using standardized methods. Respondents also recalled their body weight at each decade from age 20 to the referent year. Several anthropometric variables were derived, and unconditional logistic regression analyses were performed. The multivariable odds ratios, when comparing the highest to the lowest quartile were: for body mass index, OR = 1.12 (95% CI 0.85-1.47); for waist-hip ratio, OR = 1.07 (0.83-1.38); for height, OR = 0.78 (0.60-1.02); for weight, OR = 0.91 (0.70-1.18); for weight gain since age 20, OR = 0.91 (0.70-1.19); and for difference between minimum and maximum adult weight, OR = 0.89 (0.69-1.16). Our study provides evidence for no association between any measures of anthropometry including several derived measures of changes in weight over lifetime and prostate 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".