Lifetime recreational moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity and ovarian cancer risk: A case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results of epidemiologic studies of physical activity and ovarian cancer risk are inconsistent. Few have attempted to measure physical activity over the lifetime or in specific age windows, which may better capture etiologically relevant exposures. We examined participation in moderate-to-vigorous recreational physical activity (MVPA) in relation to ovarian cancer risk. In a population-based case-control study conducted in Montreal, Canada from 2011 to 2016 (485 cases and 887 controls), information was collected on lifetime participation in various recreational physical activities, which was used to estimate MVPA for each participant. MVPA was represented as average energy expenditure over the lifetime and in specific age-periods in units of metabolic equivalents (METs)-hours per week. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relation between average MVPA and ovarian cancer risk were estimated using multivariable logistic regression models. Confounding was assessed using directed acyclic graphs combined with a change-in-estimate approach. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for each 28.5 MET-hr/week increment of lifetime recreational MVPA was 1.11 (0.99-1.24) for ovarian cancer overall. ORs for individual age-periods were weaker. When examined by menopausal status, the OR (95% CI) for lifetime MVPA was 1.21 (1.00-1.45) for those diagnosed before menopause and 1.04 (0.89-1.21) for those diagnosed postmenopausally. The suggestive positive associations were stronger for invasive ovarian cancers and more specifically for high-grade serous carcinomas. These results do not support a reduced ovarian cancer risk associated with MVPA.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".