Moderate-vigorous recreational physical activity and breast cancer risk, stratified by menopause status: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".