Physical Activity, Global DNA Methylation, and Breast Cancer Risk: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The extent to which physical activity reduces breast cancer risk through changes in global DNA methylation is unknown. We systematically identified studies that investigated the association between: (i) physical activity and global DNA methylation; or (ii) global DNA methylation and breast cancer risk. Associations were quantified using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was investigated through subgroup analyses and the Q-test and I2 statistics. Twenty-four studies were reviewed. We observed a trend between higher levels of physical activity and higher levels of global DNA methylation [pooled standardized mean difference = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.03–0.40; P = 0.09] which, in turn, had a suggestive association with a reduced breast cancer risk (pooled relative risk = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49–1.02; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, a positive association between physical activity and global DNA methylation was observed among studies assessing physical activity over long periods of time (P = 0.02). Similarly, the association between global DNA methylation and breast cancer was statistically significant for prospective cohort studies (P = 0.007). Despite the heterogeneous evidence base, the literature suggests that physical activity reduces the risk of breast cancer through increased global DNA methylation. This study is the first to systematically overview the complete biologic pathway between physical activity, global DNA methylation, and breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(11); 1320–31. ©2018 AACR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".