The mediating role of health behaviors in the association between depression, anxiety and cancer incidence: an individual participant data meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although behavioral mechanisms in the association among depression, anxiety, and cancer are plausible, few studies have empirically studied mediation by health behaviors. We aimed to examine the mediating role of several health behaviors in the associations among depression, anxiety, and the incidence of various cancer types (overall, breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, smoking-related, and alcohol-related cancers). METHODS: = 319 613, cancer incidence = 25 803). Health behaviors included smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), sedentary behavior, and sleep duration and quality. In stage one, path-specific regression estimates were obtained in each cohort. In stage two, cohort-specific estimates were pooled using random-effects multivariate meta-analysis, and natural indirect effects (i.e. mediating effects) were calculated as hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Smoking (HRs range 1.04-1.10) and physical inactivity (HRs range 1.01-1.02) significantly mediated the associations among depression, anxiety, and lung cancer. Smoking was also a mediator for smoking-related cancers (HRs range 1.03-1.06). There was mediation by health behaviors, especially smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and a higher BMI, in the associations among depression, anxiety, and overall cancer or other types of cancer, but effects were small (HRs generally below 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking constitutes a mediating pathway linking depression and anxiety to lung cancer and smoking-related cancers. Our findings underline the importance of smoking cessation interventions for persons with depression or anxiety.
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 | 0.034 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.077 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".