Case-Control Study of Lifetime Total Physical Activity and Prostate Cancer Risk
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population-based case-control study of physical activity and prostate cancer risk was conducted in Alberta, Canada, between 1997 and 2000. A total of 988 incident, histologically confirmed cases of stage T2 or greater prostate cancer were frequency matched to 1,063 population controls. The Lifetime Total Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to measure occupational, household, and recreational activity levels from childhood until diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. No association for total lifetime physical activity and prostate cancer risk was found (odds ratio (OR) for > or =203 vs. <115 metabolic equivalent-hours/week/year=0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 1.17). By type of activity, the risks were decreased for occupational (OR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.22) and recreational (OR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.61, 1.05) activity but were increased for household (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.76) activity when comparing the highest and lowest quartiles. For activity performed at different age periods throughout life, activity done during the first 18 years of life (OR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.04) decreased risk. When activity was examined by intensity of activity (i.e., low, <3; moderate, 3-6; and vigorous, >6 metabolic equivalents), vigorous activity decreased prostate cancer risk (OR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.92). This study provides inconsistent evidence for the association between physical activity and prostate cancer risk.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it