MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534588967 · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000000745

Moderate-vigorous recreational physical activity and breast cancer risk, stratified by menopause status: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2534588967 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRelative riskMenopauseOverweightBody mass indexMeta-analysisInternal medicineCohort studySubgroup analysisCancerObstetricsOncologyGynecologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Physical inactivity increases postmenopausal and possibly premenopausal breast cancer risk, although different biologic mechanisms are proposed. Our primary objective was to estimate breast cancer risk associated with high versus low levels of moderate-vigorous recreational activity, separately for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature published to July 2015. Included reports were cohort or case-control studies relating moderate-vigorous recreational physical activity (metabolic equivalent ≥3.0) to breast cancer incidence, exclusively (≥90%) in premenopausal or postmenopausal women. We appraised study quality and performed meta-analyses using random effects modeling. Subgroup meta-analyses were based on tumor subtype, race, body mass index, parity, hormone therapy use, family history of cancer, and statistical adjustment for body fatness. Dose-response relations were examined. RESULTS: Pooled relative risks (RRs, 95% CI) for women with higher versus lower levels of moderate-vigorous recreational activity were RR = 0.80 (0.74-0.87) and RR = 0.79 (0.74-0.84) for premenopausal (43 studies) and postmenopausal (58 studies) breast cancer, respectively, with high heterogeneity. Inverse associations were weaker among postmenopausal cohort studies (RR = 0.90 [0.85-0.95]) and studies that statistically adjusted for nonrecreational (eg, occupational, household) activity (RR = 0.91 [0.77-1.06] premenopausal, RR = 0.96 [0.86-1.08] postmenopausal). Risk estimates with versus without body fatness adjustment did not vary by menopause status, although other subgroup effects were menopause-dependent. Among studies of overweight/obese women, there was an inverse association with postmenopausal but not premenopausal breast cancer (RR = 0.88 [0.82-0.95] and RR = 0.99 [0.98-1.00], respectively). Dose-response curves were generally nonlinear. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk estimates may be similar for premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer, subgroup effects may be menopause-dependent.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.303 · 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