MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113309786 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-23

Lifestyle behaviors, obesity, and perceived health among men with and without a diagnosis of prostate cancer: A population-based, cross-sectional study

2008· article· en· W2113309786 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Q. Rogers, Kerry S. Courneya, Rammarayan Paragi-Gururaja, Stephen Markwell, Remi L. Imeokparia

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsCross-sectional studyPublic healthObesityProstate cancerEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthCancerPopulationGerontologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of how prostate cancer survivors differ from men without prostate cancer and whether these potential differences vary across demographic subgroups will help to focus and prioritize future public health interventions for improving the health and well-being of prostate cancer survivors. Therefore, our study aims were to compare lifestyle behaviors, body mass index (BMI), and perceived health in men with and without a diagnosis of prostate cancer in a national, population-based sample and to explore whether these comparisons differ for demographic subgroups. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, men aged > or = 40 were identified from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2002 data (n = 63,662). Respondents reporting history of prostate cancer (n = 2,524) were compared with non prostate cancer controls (n = 61,138) with regard to daily fruit and vegetable servings (FVPD), smoking, alcohol, sedentary behavior, BMI, and perceived health. Multivariable logistic regression calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the entire sample and for age, race, education, and urbanicity subgroups. RESULTS: Men with prostate cancer did not differ from men without prostate cancer with regard to smoking, alcohol, sedentary behavior, and obesity but were more likely to consume >/= 5 FVPD (OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.09-1.56) and report poor or fair health (OR, 95% CI: 1.62, 1.33-1.97). Subgroup analyses demonstrated attenuation of the higher likelihood of > or = 5 FVPD among prostate cancer survivors in rural respondents (OR, 95% CI: 0.98, 0.72-1.33). Poorer perceived health was greatest if < or = 65 years of age (OR, 95% CI: 2.54, 1.79-3.60) and nonsignificant if black (OR, 95% CI: 1.41, 0.70-2.82). Smoking and alcohol which were not significant for the sample as a whole, demonstrated significant associations in certain subgroups. CONCLUSION: Although efforts to enhance perceived health and healthy lifestyle behaviors among prostate cancer survivors are warranted, demographic subgroups such as prostate cancer survivors < or = 65 and rural populations may require more aggressive interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207