Obesity, High Energy Intake, Lack of Physical Activity, and the Risk of Kidney Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors conducted a population-based case-control study of 810 cases with histologically confirmed incident kidney cancer and 3,106 controls to assess the effect of obesity, energy intake, and recreational physical activity on renal cell and non-renal cell cancer risk in Canada from 1994 to 1997. Compared with normal body mass index (BMI; 18.5 to <25.0 kg/m2), obesity (BMI, >or=30.0 kg/m2) was associated with multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of 2.57 (2.02-3.28) for renal cell cancer and 2.79 (1.70-4.60) for non-renal cell cancer. The OR (95% CI) associated with the highest quartiles of calorie intake was 1.30 (1.02-1.66) for renal cell cancer and 1.53 (0.92-2.53) for non-renal cell cancer. Compared with the lowest quartile of total recreational physical activity, the highest quartile of total activity was associated with an OR (95% CI) of 1.00 (0.78-1.28) and 0.79 (0.46-1.36) for the two subtypes. There were no apparent differences between men and women about these associations. The influence of obesity and physical activity on the risk of renal cell and non-renal cell cancer did not change by age, whereas the effect of excess energy intake was stronger among older people. No significant effect modifications of physical activity on BMI among both genders and of energy intake on BMI among men were observed, with a synergic effect of obesity and high energy intake on renal cell cancer risk found among women. This study suggests that obesity and excess energy intake are important etiologic risk factors for renal cell and non-renal cell cancer. The role of physical activity needs further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".