Association between domain-specific sedentary behaviour and endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Sedentary behaviour is associated with increased cancer risk. We aim to assess the associations of domain-specific and total sedentary behaviour with risk of endometrial cancer, with additional attention paid to potential differences in adjustment strategy for obesity and physical activity. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) and Meta-Analyses and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE). Data sources PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched up to 28 February 2023, supplemented by grey literature searches. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Observational human studies evaluating the association between sedentary behaviour and endometrial cancer. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers extracted data and conducted the quality assessment based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) independently. We used a random-effects model with inverse variance approach to pool the estimates. The extent of heterogeneity was quantified with the I 2 statistics. Results Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review. Fourteen studies involving 882 686 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled relative risks (RRs) for high versus low level of overall sedentary behaviour was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.14 to 1.43; I 2 =34.8%). The increased risk regarding specific domains was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09 to 1.37; I 2 =13.4%, n=10) for occupational domain, 1.34 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.83; I 2 =53.7%, n=6) for leisure-time domain and 1.55 (95% CI: 1.27 to 1.89; I 2 =0.0%, n=2) for total sedentary behaviour. Larger pooled RRs were observed among studies with adjustment for physical activity and studies without adjustment for body mass index. Conclusions Higher levels of sedentary behaviour, total and occupational sedentary behaviour in particular, increase the risk of endometrial cancer. Future studies are needed to verify domain-specific associations based on objective quantification of sedentary behaviour, as well as the interaction of physical activity, adiposity and sedentary time on endometrial cancer.
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".