Physical Activity and Risk of Colon and Rectal Cancers: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated several aspects of the role of physical activity in colon and rectal cancer etiology that remain unclear in the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer. This cohort of 413,044 men and women had 1,094 cases of colon and 599 cases of rectal cancer diagnosed during an average of 6.4 years of follow-up. We analyzed baseline data on occupational, household, and recreational activity to examine associations by type of activity, tumor subsite, body mass index (BMI), and energy intake. The multivariate hazard ratio for colon cancer was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.59-1.03] among the most active participants when compared with the inactive, with evidence of a dose-response effect (P(trend) = 0.04). For right-sided colon tumors, the risk was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-1.00) in the highest quartile of activity with evidence of a linear trend (P(trend) = 0.004). Active participants with a BMI under 25 had a risk of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.39-1.01) for colon cancer compared with the inactive. Finally, an interaction between BMI and activity (P(interaction) = 0.03) was observed for right-sided colon cancers; among moderately active and active participants with a BMI under 25, a risk of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.21-0.68) was found as compared with inactive participants with BMI >30. No comparable decreased risks were observed for rectal cancer for any type of physical activity for any subgroup analyses or interactions considered. We found that physical activity reduced colon cancer risk, specifically for right-sided tumors and for lean participants, but not rectal cancer.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".