Case–control study of lifetime total physical activity and endometrial cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population-based case-control study of physical activity and endometrial cancer risk was conducted in Alberta between 2002 and 2006. Incident, histologically confirmed cases of endometrial cancer (n = 542) were frequency age-matched to controls (n = 1,032). The Lifetime Total Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to measure occupational, household, and recreational activity levels. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Total lifetime physical activity reduced endometrial cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] for >129 vs. <82 MET-h/week/year = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.63, 1.18). By type of activity, the risks were significantly decreased for greater recreational activity (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.87), but not for household activity (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.75, 1.58) and/or occupational activity (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.20) when comparing the highest to lowest quartiles. For activity performed at different biologically defined life periods, some indication of reduced risks with activity done between menarche and full-term pregnancy and after menarche was observed. When examining the activity by intensity of activity (i.e., light <3, moderate 3-6, and vigorous >6 METs), light activity slightly decreased endometrial cancer risk (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.97) but no association with moderate or vigorous intensity activity was found. Endometrial cancer risk was increased with sedentary occupational activity by 28% (95 CI%: 0.89, 1.83) for >11.3 h/week/year versus
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".