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 OpenAlex
Lloyd Balbuena, Alan G. Casson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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