Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression and anxiety are thought to increase a person's risk of developing cancer, but research results have been inconclusive, according to a Wiley CANCER News Alert. In an analysis of multiple studies from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway and Canada, investigators found that depression and anxiety are not linked to higher risks for most types of cancer among this population. The analysis was published by Wiley online in CANCER, a peer‐reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society. Experts have suspected that depression and anxiety may increase cancer risk by affecting a person's health‐related behaviors or by having biological effects on the body that support cancer development. Researchers found no associations between depression or anxiety, and overall, breast, prostate, colorectal and alcohol‐related cancers during a follow‐up of up to 26 years. The presence of depression or anxiety was linked with a 6% higher risk of developing lung cancer and smoking‐related cancers, but this risk was substantially reduced after adjusting for other cancer‐related risk factors including smoking, alcohol use and body mass index. Therefore, this analysis supports the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors, including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression, the news release indicated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.078 |
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".