MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AICR Conference

2012· article· en· W2327375991 on OpenAlex
Peggy Eastman

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology Times · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineCancerCancer preventionRecreationPopulationColorectal cancerGerontologyRisk factorSittingOncologyGynecologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FigureWASHINGTON, DC—In a country whose citizens are becoming heavier and more sedentary, evidence continues to emerge that lack of physical activity is a risk factor for a number of cancers, including those of the breast, colon, and endometrium. But now, new statistics presented at the annual research conference of the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) estimate that up to 49,000 cases of breast cancer and 43,000 cases of colon cancer occurring each year in the United States are linked to being sedentary. The findings, which suggest that sitting itself is a cancer risk factor, were presented at an AICR news briefing here. New findings from the Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention (ALPHA) trial show that the inflammation marker C-reactive protein – which raises cancer risk – can be reduced by moderate to vigorous physical activity in postmenopausal women, said Christine Friedenreich, PhD, Senior Research Scientist for Population Health Research at Alberta (Canada) Health Services-Cancer Care. “There is very convincing evidence that there is risk reduction with activity,” said Dr. Friedenreich, who is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Calgary. She said that for breast cancer, the greatest risk decreases were found for recreational and household activity (about a 21% drop in risk), followed by walking or cycling (about an 18% drop in risk) and occupational activity (about a 13% decrease). For colon cancer, Dr. Friedenreich said occupational activity is associated with about a 22% reduction in cancer risk, while recreational activity is associated with about a 23% decrease in cancer risk. Biologic mechanisms for the benefits of physical activity in lowering cancer risk include decreases in body fat, sex hormones, prostaglandins, gastrointestinal transit time, inflammation, and oxidative stress, along with increases in insulin sensitivity, immune function, and pulmonary function. In addition, she noted, inflammation increases cytokines that foster cell proliferation and suppress cell death, and the benefits of physical activity are relatively constant across body mass index (BMI) categories and for both men and women. ‘Just Sitting’ “The majority of people's time is spent just sitting,” said Neville Owen, PhD, Head of the Behavioral Epidemiology Laboratory at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia; a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow; and Professor of Health Behavior at the University of Queensland. “Sitting time is emerging as a strong candidate for being a cancer risk factor in its own right. It seems highly likely that the longer you sit, the higher your risk….This phenomenon isn't dependent on body weight or how much exercise people do. If you're sitting for 10 to 11 hours a day, then it's a big exposure across a whole day and across weeks and months. The world in which we live is designed to make us sit, but we as biological creatures were not designed to sit.” ‘Breaks in Sedentary Time’ Hypothesis Dr. Owen said there is evidence to support the “breaks in sedentary time” hypothesis, which states that “breaking up sedentary time with frequent transitions from sitting to standing has beneficial associations on biomarkers independent of total sedentary time. “People who break up sedentary time have on average about two inches less waist circumference than those who just sit.” He said he has found that in terms of insulin resistance and inflammation, “even breaks as short as one minute can lower these biomarkers.” Dr. Owen and his collaborators are now conducting a randomized clinical trial investigating the link between biomarkers of cancer risk and regular desk breaks and other activities that promote standing. He told OT, “Standing desks used to be much more common.” Asked by OT if physical activity is as beneficial for cancer survivors as it is in primary cancer prevention, Dr. Owen said yes—“very definitely; absolutely.” He noted that research on colorectal cancer survivors has shown that those who watched many hours of television gained more weight and raised their risk of cancer recurrence. “Television viewing time, a sign of sedentary behavior, appears to increase subsequent risk of weight gain in cancer survivors,” he said. ‘Break Up Your Day’ “Moving more means lowering cancer risk,” said Alice Bender, MS, RD, AICR's Nutrition Communications Manager. “AICR is saying to America, “Break up your day; make time plus break time equals cancer prevention.” She said AICR recommends at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day, but noted that this half hour is “just one sliver of the day,” which is why the organization is calling for more activity breaks throughout the day. By thinking in terms of break time, said Ms. Bender, Americans can infuse their day “with short periods of activity that can protect against many cancers.” Children Lawrence A. Soler, President and CEO of Partnership for a Healthier America, said the increase in sedentary lifestyles could be devastating for American children in terms of long-term cancer risk: “Since 1980 obesity among children has increased dramatically. It has doubled among children ages two to five, tripled among children ages six to 11, and almost quadrupled among children 12 to 19.” He added, “Today, nearly one in every three American children are overweight or obese at an estimated cost of $14 billion annually.” He praised First Lady Michelle Obama for launching her campaign to reduce childhood obesity, Let's Move! (www.letsmove.gov). Mr. Soler said that to help get children moving and lower their risk of cancer and other diseases, “We have to do more. We have to work with mayors and schools and work with parents and caregivers and kid.…We have to be relentless in our efforts.” Agreeing with Dr. Owen and Ms. Bender, Mr. Soler said, “We have to have activity breaks as part of the everyday routine.” Related Research Related research presented at the AICR meeting supports the association of physical activity with reduced cancer risk. Some of the research showed that obesity and inactivity are increasing in parts of the world where people have traditionally been leaner and fitter. For example, a study of 1,059 Nigerian government office workers from the Harvard School of Public Health, the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland, and the Institute of Human Virology in Nigeria showed that urbanized Nigerian adults have adopted a sedentary lifestyle. As a result, levels of obesity in this group are approaching those in the West.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.316 · 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