Physical activity and lung cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research conducted predominantly in male populations on physical activity and lung cancer has yielded inconsistent results. We examined this relationship among 416,277 men and women from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Detailed information on recent recreational, household and occupational physical activity, smoking habits and diet was assessed at baseline between 1992 and 2000. Relative risks (RR) were estimated using Cox regression. During 6.3 years of follow-up we identified 607 men and 476 women with incident lung cancer. We did not observe an inverse association between recent occupational, recreational or household physical activity and lung cancer risk in either males or females. However, we found some reduction in lung cancer risk associated with sports in males (adjusted RR = 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.98; highest tertile vs. inactive group), cycling (RR = 0.73; 0.54-0.99) in females and non-occupational vigorous physical activity. For occupational physical activity, lung cancer risk was increased for unemployed men (adjusted RR = 1.57; 1.20-2.05) and men with standing occupations (RR = 1.35; 1.02-1.79) compared with sitting professions. There was no evidence of heterogeneity of physical activity associations across countries, or across any of the considered cofactors. For some histologic subtypes suggestive sex-specific reductions, limited by subgroup sizes, were observed, especially with vigorous physical activity. In total, our study shows no consistent protective associations of physical activity with lung cancer risk. It can be assumed that the elevated risks found for occupational physical activity are not produced mechanistically by physical activity itself but rather reflect exposure to occupation-related lung cancer 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 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) | 0.000 | 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".