Physical activity, sedentary behaviour and risk of oesophago‐gastric cancer: A prospective cohort study within UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few observational studies have assessed the role of physical activity in oesophago-gastric cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the association between physical activity and risk of oesophageal or gastric cancer. METHODS: A cohort of 359,033 adults aged 40-69 years were identified from the UK Biobank, which recruited participants between 2006 and 2010. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between self-reported levels of physical activity and screen-based sedentary behaviour and risk of oesophageal and gastric cancer were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: During eight years of follow-up (mean = 5.5), 294 oesophageal cancer and 217 gastric cancer cases were identified. Physical activity and screen-based sedentary behaviour levels were not associated with overall oesophago-gastric cancer risk. However, when compared with low levels, high physical activity levels were associated with a significantly reduced risk of gastric non-cardia cancer (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.95). Moderate physical activity levels were associated with a 38% reduced risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.89), although no dose-response association was apparent. CONCLUSION: Moderate, rather than high, physical activity levels were associated with the strongest reductions in oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk in this large UK prospective cohort.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".