Cancers attributable to excess body weight in Canada in 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Excess body weight (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25.00 kg/m2) is an established risk factor for diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, but its relationship to cancer is lesser-known. This study used population attributable fractions (PAFs) to estimate the cancer burden attributable to excess body weight in Canadian adults (aged 25+ years) in 2010. METHODS: We estimated PAFs using relative risk (RR) estimates from the World Cancer Research Fund International Continuous Update Project, BMI-based estimates of overweight (25.00 kg/m2-29.99 kg/m2) and obesity (30.00+ kg/m2) from the 2000-2001 Canadian Community Health Survey, and cancer case counts from the Canadian Cancer Registry. PAFs were based on BMI corrected for the bias in self-reported height and weight. RESULTS: In Canada in 2010, an estimated 9645 cancer cases were attributable to excess body weight, representing 5.7% of all cancer cases (males 4.9%, females 6.5%). When limiting the analysis to types of cancer associated with high BMI, the PAF increased to 14.9% (males 17.5%, females 13.3%). Types of cancer with the highest PAFs were esophageal adenocarcinoma (42.2%), kidney (25.4%), gastric cardia (20.7%), liver (20.5%), colon (20.5%) and gallbladder (20.2%) for males, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (36.1%), uterus (35.2%), gallbladder (23.7%) and kidney (23.0%) for females. Types of cancer with the greatest number of attributable cases were colon (1445), kidney (780) and advanced prostate (515) for males, and uterus (1825), postmenopausal breast (1765) and colon (675) for females. Irrespective of sex or type of cancer, PAFs were highest in the Prairies (except Alberta) and the Atlantic region and lowest in British Columbia and Quebec. CONCLUSION: The cancer burden attributable to excess body weight is substantial and will continue to rise in the near future because of the rising prevalence of overweight and obesity in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".