Comparison of self-reported height and weight by cancer type among men from Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among men there is epidemiological evidence for an association between obesity and increased risk of renal cell carcinoma, colon cancer and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. The evidence for other cancer sites remains inconsistent. We conducted a large population-based, multi-site, case-control study of environmental causes of cancer among males in Montreal, Canada. Among the many questionnaire items collected by interview were height and usual weight. We compared height, weight and body mass index (BMI) among individuals with 11 different cancer types (combined N=3016) and population-based controls (N=509). Linear regression was used to model the relationship of the disease status with each of three dependent continuous variables (height, weight and BMI), while adjusting for covariates. For most cancer groups, weight and BMI were lower than among population controls. Because of potential information bias and reverse causality bias, we focused on the comparisons among cancer types. The lowest BMI values were observed among men with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus, lung and stomach cancers. The highest BMIs were reported by men with prostate and kidney cancers, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Inconsistencies in the epidemiological literature on obesity and cancer risk could be related to the difficulties in obtaining unbiased reports of pre-disease weight and to publication bias.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".