Adult height in relation to risk of cancer in a cohort of Canadian women
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the influence of body mass index on cancer risk has been intensively investigated, few epidemiologic studies have examined the association of adult height with risk of cancer. We assessed the association of height with risk of all cancer and of 19 site-specific cancers in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, a prospective cohort of nearly 90,000 women. Weight and height were measured at enrollment, and information on reproductive and medical history as well as lifestyle exposures was obtained by means of questionnaire. After exclusions, 5,679 incident invasive cancers were identified among 88,256 women. We used Cox proportional hazards model to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) per 10 cm increase in height. All tests of statistical significance were two sided. All cancers combined and ten specific sites (colorectum, colon, premenopausal breast, postmenopausal breast, endometrium, ovary, kidney, thyroid, melanoma and leukemia) showed statistically significant positive associations with height. The HR for all cancers combined was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.08-1.18), and the magnitude of the associations for specific sites ranged from HR 1.11 (95% CI: 1.03-1.20) for postmenopausal breast cancer to HR 1.51 (95% CI: 1.27-1.80) for melanoma. Our study provides strong support for a positive association of adult height with risk of certain cancers. The underlying biological mechanisms are not clear but may differ by anatomic site.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it