Physical activity and risk of renal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of physical activity in the development of renal cell carcinoma was examined using a population-based case-control study conducted in the province of Ontario. Physical activity was examined in several ways, including by intensity and during various life periods. Frequency-matching by 5-year age groups and sex produced sets of 486 females (133 cases and 353 controls) and 447 males (172 cases, 275 controls). Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). After adjusting for age, body mass index and smoking, women who performed relatively high amounts of recent recreational activity (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.82 for the highest vs. lowest quartile of activity, 2 years ago), as well as strenuous recreational activity (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.75), had a reduced risk of developing the disease. In general, moderate recreational activity did not appear to be associated with risk in females. In males, a relatively high frequency of total and moderate recreational activity was associated with reduced risk (total, OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.87; moderate, OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89), especially during the teen years. Recreational activity during one's 30s was not associated with cancer risk. There was also no association between occupational activity and cancer risk in females or males. The results of our study, in general, suggest that physical activity may be associated with a decreased risk of developing renal cell carcinoma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".