Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this paper are to briefly review the types of animal and tumor models used in carcinogenesis studies and to consider their utility in studies of physical activity and cancer. METHODS: Published data from animal studies using tumor models for which corresponding human epidemiologic evidence shows a clear association between physical activity and that cancer (i.e., colon and breast) are reviewed. RESULTS: A variety of animal-tumor models have been used in cancer studies including spontaneous tumors, chemically induced tumors, orthotopic and syngeneic tumor transplantation, injected tumors, and genetically engineered (transgenic, knockout, and mutation-induced) mice with a predisposition to neoplasia. The most commonly used animal-tumor model in the study of physical activity has been the chemical carcinogenesis model. Methodological limitations of the various animal-tumor models are described including variations in dosing, route of administration, and type of carcinogen used, and forced versus voluntary exercise effects. CONCLUSIONS: Animal-tumor models are useful for understanding specific aspects of the carcinogenesis process and the interaction of this process with exercise. There is no one animal-tumor model that is ideally suited for studying physical activity interventions. However, animal-tumor models can be viewed as complementary to epidemiologic studies and human clinical trials in the area of physical activity and cancer prevention.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".