Diurnal timing of physical activity and risk of colorectal cancer in the UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity reduces colorectal cancer risk, yet the diurnal timing of physical activity in colorectal cancer etiology remains unclear. METHODS: This study used 24-h accelerometry time series from UK Biobank participants aged 42 to 79 years to derive circadian physical activity patterns using functional principal component analysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations with colorectal cancer risk. RESULTS: Among 86,252 participants (56% women), 529 colorectal cancer cases occurred during a median 5.3-year follow-up. We identified four physical activity patterns that explained almost 100% of the data variability during the day. A pattern of continuous day-long activity was inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.89-0.99). A second pattern of late-day activity was suggestively inversely related to risk (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.85-1.02). A third pattern of early- plus late-day activity was associated with decreased risk (HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80-0.99). A fourth pattern of mid-day plus night-time activity showed no relation (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.88-1.19). Our results were consistent across various sensitivity analyses, including the restriction to never smokers, the exclusion of the first 2 years of follow-up, and the adjustment for shift work. CONCLUSIONS: A pattern of early- plus late-day activity is related to reduced colorectal cancer risk, beyond the benefits of overall activity. Further research is needed to confirm the role of activity timing in colorectal cancer prevention.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".