Physical activity, anthropometric factors and risk of pancreatic cancer: Results from the Canadian enhanced cancer surveillance system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the hypothesis that insulin resistance may be an etiologic factor in pancreatic cancer, we assessed the pancreatic cancer risk associated with anthropometric factors and physical activity, both of which are important determinants of insulin sensitivity in humans. Three hundred and twelve patients with histologically confirmed pancreatic cancer were compared to 2,919 controls in a population-based, case-control study in 7 of the 10 Canadian provinces. Participants were asked to report their exposure status for the period 2 years before interview. Men in the highest quartile of body mass index (BMI, > or =28.3 kg/m(2)) were at increased risk of pancreatic cancer [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-3.35]. In addition, men who reported a decrease in weight of at least 2.9% from their lifetime maximum were at reduced risk compared to those reporting a < or =2.9% loss (> or =10.2% loss, OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.86). BMI 2 years before interview was not associated with pancreatic cancer risk among women, though those reporting a > or =12.5% decrease in weight from their lifetime maximum had substantially lower risk compared to those in the baseline quartile (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.99). After adjustment for age, province of residence, dietary intake and anthropometric factors, men in the highest quartile of the composite moderate and strenuous physical activity index were at reduced risk of pancreatic cancer (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.90). Physical activity did not appear to be associated with pancreatic cancer among women, though a tendency for reduced risk with increasing levels of strenuous activity was suggested (p for trend = 0.06). Our findings support the hypothesis that insulin resistance is an etiologic factor in the development of pancreatic neoplasms among men and possibly women.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".