Physical inactivity, energy intake, obesity and the risk of rectal cancer in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a population-based case-control study of 1,447 incident rectal cancer cases and 3,106 population controls aged 20-76 years to assess the effect of recreational physical activity, energy intake and obesity on rectal cancer risk in 7 of 10 Canadian provinces in 1994-97. After adjustment for the effect of various potential confounding factors, total recreational physical activity in the highest quartile was associated with an odds ratio (OR) for rectal cancer risk of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-1.20) in women and 1.15 (95% CI = 0.88-1.49) in men. Women and men in the highest quartile of caloric intake (> = 56,741 and > = 63,143 kJ/week) had ORs of 1.50 (95% CI = 1.00-2.25) and 1.61 (95% CI = 1.13-2.28), respectively. Total dietary fat intake was not associated with a risk of rectal cancer after adjustment for caloric intake. Obesity (BMI > = 30 kg/m(2)) was associated with an OR of 1.44 (95% CI = 1.06-1.95) for women and 1.78 (95% CI = 1.36-2.34) for men. Men and women with lifetime maximum body mass index (BMI) > = 30 kg/m(2) had respective ORs of 1.70 (95% CI = 1.30-2.23) and 1.26 (95% CI = 0.96-1.66). The greatest increase in rectal cancer risk was observed in men and women with simultaneous high energy intake, high BMI and low physical activity. Our study provides evidence that physical inactivity, high energy intake and obesity are associated with the risk of rectal cancer, and there is a probable synergic effect among the 3 risk factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".