The Association of Physical Activity and Body Mass Index with the Risk of Large Bowel Polyps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE AND METHOD: Several studies have suggested that physical inactivity and obesity increase the risk for colorectal neoplasia. In this study, we investigated the association of physical activity and body mass index (BMI) with the risk of different types of large bowel polyps. We did an observational analysis nested within a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled chemoprevention trial among patients with one or more recently resected histologically confirmed colorectal adenoma. Nine hundred thirty patients were randomized to calcium (1,200 mg/d, as carbonate) or placebo. Follow-up colonoscopies were conducted approximately 1 and 4 years after the qualifying examination. At study entry, we obtained each subject's current body weight and height, which we used to calculate BMI. After the second study colonoscopy, we asked subjects questions about their leisure time physical activity. Seven hundred eighty-seven subjects completed at least part of the physical activity questionnaire. RESULTS: We found no association between measures of physical activity or BMI and tubular adenomas or hyperplastic polyps. However, among men, there were strong inverse associations observed between physical activity and advanced neoplastic polyps. Compared with men whose total daily energy expenditure was in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile had a risk ratio of 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 17-0.72); there was no similar reduction observed among women (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-4.03; P for interaction = 0.04). DATA INTERPRETATIONS: We found a significant inverse relationship between several measures of physical activity and risk of advanced colorectal neoplasms, particularly among men. No associations were found between BMI and hyperplastic polyps, tubular adenomas, or advanced neoplastic polyps.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".