MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209826315 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.78

O-335 Occupational physical activity and lung cancer risk among four cohorts of the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow’s Health Project

2021· article· en· W3209826315 on OpenAlexaffabout
Romain Pasquet, Yun Zhu, Emmanuelle Batisse, Jérôme Lavoué, Marie‐Élise Parent, Jack Siemiatycki, Anita Koushik, Vikki Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalCohortCohort studyLogistic regressionCancerDemographyPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Recreational physical activity (PA) has been associated with reduced lung cancer risk. Occupational-related PA may be one of the most important sources of PA, but the few studies that have examined the occupational PA-lung cancer relationship have produced inconsistent result. <h3>Objective</h3> To investigate the association between occupational PA and lung cancer risk. <h3>Methods</h3> A case-cohort study was nested among four cohorts of the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow’s Health Project. Through linkage of each cohort to their respective provincial cancer registry, 453 incident lung cancer cases diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 were identified; a random sub-cohort of 2,435 participants was sampled at baseline. Data on the longest-held job and risk factors were gathered via a harmonized questionnaire. Using a database generated by our team on the energy expenditures associated with almost 3,600 job titles, metabolic equivalent of tasks (METs) were assigned to the longest-held job of each participant. In total, 335 cases (139 men; 196 women) and 2,320 sub-cohort members (879 men; 1,441 women) with assignable job codes and MET values were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models, with normal or robust variance estimators, were used to estimate study-specific odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relationship between occupational PA (categorized in tertiles) and lung cancer risk, while adjusting for smoking and lung cancer risk factors identified using directed acyclic graphs. The ORs were then pooled using a random-effects model. <h3>Results</h3> Compared with low occupational PA as reference, subjects with medium and high occupational PA had ORs of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.38–1.07) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.39–1.34), respectively. The ORs were similar by sex and by smoking status (never vs. ever smokers). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Our findings suggest that, like recreational PA, occupational PA may protect against lung cancer risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207