Case-Control Study of Lifetime Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Risk
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population-based case-control study of 1,233 incident breast cancer cases and 1,237 controls was conducted in Alberta, Canada, in 1995-1997 to examine the effect of lifetime physical activity patterns on breast cancer risk. No associations between physical activity and breast cancer were found for premenopausal women. For postmenopausal women in the highest quartile (> or =161 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/week per year) versus the lowest quartile (<104.8 MET-hours/week per year) of lifetime total physical activity, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52, 0.94). When the risks associated with each type of activity were examined for postmenopausal women, household and occupational activity conferred the largest risk reductions (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.79 and OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.81, respectively, for highest vs. lowest quartiles of activity), while recreational activity was not associated with any risk reductions. For postmenopausal women, the authors found stronger risk reductions for those who were also nonsmokers (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88), non-alcohol-drinkers (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.77), or nulliparous (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.70) when they compared the highest with the lowest quartile of lifetime total physical activity. This study provides evidence that lifetime total activity reduces risk of postmenopausal breast 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it