Excess Body Weight and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Canada: Associations in Subgroups of Clinically Defined Familial Risk of Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overweight and obesity are linked with several chronic diseases, including colorectal cancer, among men, but results among women are equivocal. Previous evidence suggests that menopausal status, postmenopausal hormone use, and family history of cancer may modify the link between adiposity and colorectal cancer. In data from two population-based case-control studies (cases: 1,292 males and 1,404 females; controls: 1,465 males and 1,203 females) in Ontario and Newfoundland, Canada, we examined the link between colorectal cancer and body mass index (BMI) at two reference periods (BMI 2 years prior and BMI at age 20 years), weight gain since age 20 years, and height. Based on recent BMI indices among men, obesity (BMI >/=30 kg/m(2)) was associated with an 80% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.43-2.27] increased risk of colorectal cancer relative to a normal BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2)). The same comparison for BMI at age 20 years suggested a 94% increased risk of colorectal cancer (95% CI, 1.19-3.16). Odds ratios were similar among subgroups of men with and without a clinically defined familial risk of cancer (according to the Amsterdam or revised Bethesda criteria for Lynch syndrome). Associations were moderately stronger for cancer of the colon than cancer of the rectum. Among women, BMI and weight gain were not linked with colorectal cancer; the null associations were persistent in subgroups of familial risk of cancer, menopausal status, estrogenic status, and subsite. Tall height (>1.75 m), however, was linked with increased risk of colorectal cancer among women (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.46-3.59) but not among men. This study suggests that obesity is associated with increased risk of sporadic and Lynch syndrome-related colon and rectal cancers among men but not among women, whereas height is directly linked with all such cancers among women but not among men.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".