No Effect of Exercise on Colon Mucosal Prostaglandin Concentrations: A 12-Month Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies provide evidence that exercise is associated with reduced risk of colon cancer. Exercise may exert protective effects on the colon by influencing prostaglandin production. We hypothesized that an exercise intervention would decrease prostaglandin E(2) concentrations and increase prostaglandin F(2alpha) in colon biopsies compared with controls. METHODS: A 12-month randomized controlled trial testing the effects of exercise on colon mucosal prostaglandin concentrations was conducted in men (n=95) and women (n=89). The exercise intervention included moderate-to-vigorous aerobic activity, 60 min/d, 6 days/wk versus controls. Prostaglandin E(2) and F(2alpha) concentrations were measured in colon biopsies using an enzyme-linked immunoassay at baseline and at 12 months to assess changes in mean concentration for each group. RESULTS: Baseline colon prostaglandin E(2) and F(2alpha) concentrations were not correlated with age, race, education, family history of colon cancer, previous polyps, body size, diet, smoking, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug use, metabolic factors, or sex hormone levels. For both men and women, the exercise and control groups showed no change in mean prostaglandin E(2) or F(2alpha) between the baseline and 12-month biopsies. There was no difference in mean prostaglandin concentrations between exercisers and controls when exercisers were grouped by level of intervention adherence. Results were not modified by baseline age, body mass index, percentage of body fat, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug use, history of adenomatous polyps, or family history of colon cancer. CONCLUSION: A 12-month moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic exercise intervention did not result in significant changes in colon mucosal prostaglandin concentrations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".