Recreational physical activity, relative body weight and risk of bladder cancer: A case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bladder cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed neoplasm of the urinary tract. Effects of physical activity and body fat mass on risk of bladder cancer are not well studied. Physical activity and/or body weight may exert their effects on bladder cancer risk through hormonal, immune, or yet other unknown causal pathways. This thesis, using a case-control study design, investigated the association between recreational physical activity, relative body weight (BMI), and risk of bladder cancer in men and women separately. The analysis was based on a portion of the National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System dataset. The self-reported data had been collected from bladder cancer cases and population controls during 1994--1997 in seven Canadian Provinces. The analyzed samples were 2,312 males (670 cases and 1,642 controls) and 1,824 women (359 cases and 1,465 controls). In men and women, the adjusted ORs (highest vs. lowest quartile) for physical activity were 1.24 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.66) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.52, 1.21), respectively. The corresponding ORs for BMI were 1.29 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.72) and 1.07 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.55), respectively. This study found that parous women were at reduced risk of bladder cancer compared to nulliparous women (OR = 0.56. 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.80). In agreement with other studies, certain occupations and cigarette smoking were associated with increased risk of bladder cancer. In men, but not in women, coffee consumption was associated with a slightly increased risk of bladder cancer (≥1 cup per day vs. never: OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.68). There was not enough evidence in this study to conclude that recreational physical activity and BMI were related to risk of bladder 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".