Physical activity and the risk of <scp>non‐Hodgkin</scp> lymphoma subtypes: A pooled analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is composed of a heterogeneous collection of subtypes with considerable differences in genetics, biology and aetiology. Studies to date on physical activity and NHL risk have not had sufficient sample size to evaluate whether associations differ by subtype. We pooled data from nine case-control studies to examine the association between moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) and risk of NHL overall and by subtype (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma and mature T-cell lymphoma). A total of 5653 cases and 9115 controls were included in the pooled analysis. Physical activity was harmonised across nine studies and modelled as study-specific tertiles. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the association between physical activity and NHL, adjusting for confounders. The overall odds of NHL was 13% lower among participants in the most active tertile of MVPA compared to the least active tertile (adjusted odds ratio = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80, 0.95). Similar decreases were observed across NHL subtypes. In summary, in this pooled analysis of case-control studies, physical activity was associated with a modest risk reduction for each NHL subtype examined and with overall NHL.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".