Body mass index trajectories and prostate cancer risk: Results from the EPICAP study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elevated body mass index (BMI) has been inconsistently associated with prostate cancer occurrence but it has been suggested that life course adulthood obesity may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. However, few studies have investigated lifetime BMI and prostate cancer risk. We analyzed life course BMI trajectories on prostate cancer risk based on data from the Epidemiological study of Prostate Cancer (EPICAP). We included in our analyses 781 incident prostate cancer cases and 829 controls frequency matched by age. Participants were asked about their weight every decade from age 20 to two years before reference date. BMI trajectories were determined using group-based trajectory modeling to identify groups of men with similar patterns of BMI changes. We identified five BMI trajectories groups. Men with a normal BMI at age 20 developing overweight or obesity during adulthood were at increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer compared to men who maintained a normal BMI. Our results suggest that BMI trajectories resulting in overweight or obesity during adulthood are associated with an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer, particularly in never smokers, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI throughout adulthood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".