Physical activity and cancer prevention: from observational to intervention research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to articulate how progress in epidemiological research on physical activity and cancer prevention can be made. This report briefly reviews the accumulated evidence for an etiological role of physical activity in the prevention of cancer of the colon, breast, prostate, testes, lung, endometrium, and ovary and summarizes the evidence for a causal association for each of these sites. The evidence for a causal association between physical activity and colon and breast cancers is found to be "convincing," for prostate cancer to be "probable," for lung and endometrial cancers to be "possible," and for testicular and ovarian cancers to be currently "insufficient" to make any definitive conclusions. The emerging literature on physical activity and cancer prevention intervention studies is presented, and an overview of the literature on physical activity intervention is also provided. Given the level of evidence that is currently available for the associations between physical activity and cancer, it is argued that for additional progress to be made in this field, there need to be intervention studies on physical activity and cancers of the colon and breast. For the remaining cancer sites, better designed observational epidemiological studies are needed that address the identified methodological limitations found in previous studies. These limitations include crude and incomplete physical activity assessment, lack of adequate control for confounding and effect modification, as well as a lack of consideration of the underlying biological mechanisms that are operative. This review concludes with detailed recommendations for future research in this field.
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 | 0.030 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".