Abstract 3497: The physical activity paradox in lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To deliver a systematic review of the literature synthesizing data on the association of occupational physical activity with lung cancer risk in observational studies. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data Source: A literature search was performed in electronic databases of PubMed/Medline and Embase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We screened for peer-reviewed articles from prospective cohort and case-control studies assessing the association of occupational physical activity with lung cancer risk. A sex-specific meta-analysis assessed the association of high (compared to low) level occupational physical activity with lung cancer risk, estimating the relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The systematic search identified 2065 articles, among which, 13 journal articles met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis adjusted for age, status and/or intensity of smoking, with a pooled sample size of 623,741 participants (men: 263,530; women: 358,589). A random-effect model of four prospective and four case-control studies indicated that men who engage in high-level occupational physical activity had a 16% higher risk (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35) of lung cancer than those engaging in low-level occupational physical activity. There was no association observed among women (RR=1.05, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.36) based on three available studies (prospective cohort: n=2; case-control: n=1). Conclusions: Findings from the review suggest a higher risk of lung cancer among men reported high-level occupational physical activity. Further prospective studies incorporating rigorous measures of domain-specific physical activity and other occupational exposures are needed to elucidate this association. Citation Format: Benny Rana, Liang Hu, Andrew Harper, Chao Cao, Cheryl Peters, Darren Brenner, Lin Yang. The physical activity paradox in lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3497.
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 | 0.023 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".