Relation of physical activity to risk of testicular cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America and most Western European countries, testicular cancer is often cited as the most common cancer among young and middle-aged men, and yet few studies have examined the relation between modifiable factors and testicular cancer risk. Data collected between 1995 and 1996 in Ontario, Canada, as part of the Enhanced Cancer Surveillance Study were used to examine the relation between the frequency of recreational, and intensity of occupational, physical activity at various life periods, including cumulative and averaged lifetime activity and risk of testicular cancer. Analysis of 212 cases and 251 controls revealed that relatively high frequency of participation in moderate and strenuous recreational activity in the midteens may have an adverse effect on risk of testicular cancer (odds ratio = 2.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.20, 4.64 for moderate activity of greater than five times a week compared with three times or less a month and odds ratio = 2.58, 95% confidence interval: 1.14, 5.85 for strenuous activity of greater than five times a week compared with less than once a month). Moderate or strenuous occupational demands in one's 20s also increased risk of disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".