MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381185793 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104870

Association between estimated cardiorespiratory fitness and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study

2023· article· en· W4381185793 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca Christensen, Julia A. Knight, Rinku Sutradhar, Jennifer D. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteToronto Public Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessBreast cancerMedicineProspective cohort studyAssociation (psychology)Cohort studyCancerCohortOncologyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. METHODS: 80th percentile within 10-year age bands. Fine and Gray regression was used to examine the association between eCRF and breast cancer risk, accounting for both non-breast cancer diagnoses and all-cause mortality as competing risks. Age was used as the time scale. Several different models were produced, including those adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, and stratified by measures of body fat (body mass index and per cent body fat). RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 11.0 years there were 529 cases of invasive breast cancer, 1623 cases of non-breast cancer disease and 241 deaths. With adjustment for breast cancer risk factors, high eCRF was associated with a 24% (subdistribution HR (SDHR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97) lower risk of breast cancer. When stratified by measures of body fat, we found evidence of effect measure modification. Mainly, having high eCRF was only associated with a lower risk of breast cancer among those classified as having overweight/obesity (SDHR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01) or percentage body fat above the 1st quintile (SDHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94). CONCLUSION: Having higher CRF may be a protective factor against breast cancer in postmenopausal women but only for women with elevated body fat.

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)0.001
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207