MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132123971 · doi:10.2217/fon.09.65

Physical Activity, Obesity and Risk for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

2009· review· en· W2132123971 on OpenAlexafffund
Lloyd Balbuena, Alan G. Casson

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Oncology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
FundersNova Scotia Health Research FoundationSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEsophageal adenocarcinomaObesityPhysical activityEsophageal cancerInternal medicineAdenocarcinomaOncologyCancerPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past three decades, an increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EADC) has been reported throughout North America and Europe at a rate exceeding that of any other human solid tumor. Recent studies have clearly implicated chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and several lifestyle risk factors, including tobacco consumption, diet and obesity, to be associated with increased risk of EADC. Although physical inactivity is now recognized as a risk factor for several chronic diseases including cancer, only a very limited number of studies have specifically evaluated the association between physical activity and esophageal malignancy. Furthermore, the precise biological mechanisms underlying the association between physical activity, obesity and cancer risk remain unclear. Since successful promotion of healthy body weight and exercise may substantially reduce the future incidence of cancer in the population, the purpose of this review is to explore current evidence linking physical activity, obesity and risk of malignancy - specifically EADC.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture OncologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207