A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between body size and testicular cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies assessing the relationships of anthropometry and testicular germ-cell tumour (TGCT) have reported heterogeneous findings. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the associations between adult height, weight, body mass index (BMI), and testicular cancer. Search strategies were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science on 26 May 2009. Studies that met our inclusion criteria were included in meta-analytic models using STATA 11. RESULTS: A total of 3255 references were retrieved, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analysis found adult height (odds ratio (OR) per 5-cm increase 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.19, P<0.001) and weight (OR overweight vs normal 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.98, P=0.011) to be associated with TGCT. The meta-analysis of weight and TGCT produced a summary estimate, which indicated no association, although an analysis restricted studies to North American was suggestive of association (OR per 1-kg increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis has found evidence for a positive association of adult height and TGCT, and tentative evidence for an inverse association of BMI and TGCT.
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 | 0.019 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".