Role of body mass index and weight change in the risk of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 66 cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study was designed to evaluate the effects of body mass index (BMI) and weight change on the risk of developing cancer overall and cancer at different sites. Methods: We searched PubMed and other databases up to July 2023 using the keywords related to 'risk', 'cancer', 'weight', 'overweight', and 'obesity'. We identified eligible studies, and the inclusion criteria encompassed cohort studies in English that focused on cancer diagnosis and included BMI or weight change as an exposure factor. Multiple authors performed data extraction and quality assessment, and statistical analyses were carried out using RevMan and R software. We used random- or fixed-effects models to calculate the pooled relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess study quality. Results: Analysis included 66 cohort studies. Compared to underweight or normal weight, overweight or obesity was associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, and liver cancer but a decreased risk of prostate cancer and lung cancer. Being underweight was associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer and lung cancer but not that of postmenopausal breast cancer or female reproductive cancer. In addition, weight loss of more than five kg was protective against overall cancer risk. Conclusions: Overweight and obesity increase the risk of most cancers, and weight loss of >5 kg reduces overall cancer risk. These findings provide insights for cancer prevention and help to elucidate the mechanisms underlying cancer development. Registration: Reviewregistry1786.
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 | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".