Physical activity and risk of prostate cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence concerning the possible association between physical activity and the risk of prostate cancer is inconsistent and additional data are needed. We examined the association between risk of prostate cancer and physical activity at work and in leisure time in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. In our study, including 127,923 men aged 20-97 years from 8 European countries, 2,458 cases of prostate cancer were identified during 8.5 years of followup. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, we investigated the associations between prostate cancer incidence rate and occupational activity and leisure time activity in terms of participation in sports, cycling, walking and gardening; a metabolic equivalent (MET) score based on weekly time spent on the 4 activities; and a physical activity index. MET hours per week of leisure time activity, higher score in the physical activity index, participation in any of the 4 leisure time activities, and the number of leisure time activities in which the participants were active were not associated with prostate cancer incidence. However, higher level of occupational physical activity was associated with lower risk of advanced stage prostate cancer (p(trend) = 0.024). In conclusion, our data support the hypothesis of an inverse association between advanced prostate cancer risk and occupational physical activity, but we found no support for an association between prostate cancer risk and leisure time physical activity.
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".