Relationship between sun safety behaviours and modifiable lifestyle cancer risk factors and vitamin D levels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sun exposure is the most important environmental risk factor for causing skin cancer. PURPOSE: This study examines the relationship between sun protection behaviours and modifiable lifestyle risk factors for other cancers as well as vitamin D levels. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were analysed from two large national health surveys (n = 31, 445 and n = 5604). Sun exposure and protection were characterized by the presence of sunburn, duration of sun exposure, frequency of seeking shade, frequency of wearing a hat and frequency of wearing sunscreen. Using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software 9.3.1, multivariate logistic regression models were compiled. RESULTS: Unhealthy behaviour practices were associated with sunburns or infrequent sun protection behaviour, such as cigarette consumption (either current or former smokers), second-hand smoke exposure, not having a regular doctor, higher level of alcohol consumption, street drug usage and low levels of fruit/vegetable consumption. Approximately one-quarter of individuals had less than the recommended value of serum vitamin D levels (<50 nmol/L), despite 39.2% of these individuals reporting ≥1 hour of sun exposure. CONCLUSION: Modifiable lifestyle risk factors for other cancers are correlated with infrequently practicing sun protection behaviours for skin cancer prevention. Therefore, cancer prevention campaigns can aim to target all these risk factors associated with different cancers. Sun exposure is not a reliable source to obtain recommended vitamin D levels and that other sources (eg. fish, egg yolk, fortified drinks and supplements) are a safer and more reliable option.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it