MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408912795 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.26.25324689

Proteomics signature of physical activity and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases

2025· preprint· en· W4408912795 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Stein, Hansjörg Baurecht, Patricia Bohmann, Reynalda Córdova, Pietro Ferrari, Béatrice Fervers, Christine M. Friedenreich, Marc J. Gunter, Laia Peruchet‐Noray, Diana Wu, Michael F. Leitzmann, Vivian Viallon, Heinz Freisling

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Cancer InstituteInstitut National Du CancerWorld Cancer Research FundNorthwest Regional Development AgencyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftWorld Cancer Research Fund InternationalBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsPhysical activityCancerProteomicsSignature (topology)Environmental healthMedicineInternal medicineBiologyPhysical therapyGeneticsMathematicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cancer, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and type 2 diabetes (T2D) may co-occur, a condition referred to as multimorbidity. Physical activity is inversely associated with each of these diseases; however, the biologic pathways underlying these relationships remain incompletely understood. Methods In 33,806 UK Biobank participants, we derived a proteomic signature (high-throughput panel of 2,911 proteins assessed by Olink array) of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity using linear and LASSO regressions in a two-step procedure to prospectively assess associations with physical activity-related cancers (1,108 cases), CVD (3,445 cases), T2D (1,363 cases), as well as progression to multimorbidity (420 cases). Multivariable Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each identified protein, as well as their linear combination (proteomics signature score), separately for each outcome and with adjustment for physical activity. Pathway enrichment analysis and protein-protein interaction networks were used to gain insights into the systemic interplay of the identified proteins. Results After correction for multiple testing, 223 proteins were selected in the physical activity signature. Proteins involved in food intake, metabolism, and cell growth regulation (e.g., LEP, MSTN, TGFBR2) were inversely associated with physical activity. Proteins involved in immune cell adhesion and migration, as well as cartilage and muscle integrity (e.g., integrins, COMP, MYOM3) were positively associated with physical activity. Several proteins upregulated by physical activity were inversely associated with disease risk (e.g., integrins, PI3, CLEC4A for cancer risk, or LPL, IGFBP1, LEP for T2D risk). Similarly, various proteins were downregulated by physical activity and positively associated with disease risk (e.g., CD38, TGFA for CVD risk). For multimorbidity, proteins inversely related to physical activity generally aligned with expected risk patterns, while positively associated proteins exhibited mixed effects, with inverse and positive associations. The proteomics signature score was inversely associated with the risk of cancer (HR per interquartile range: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.96) and T2D (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.72), after adjustment for physical activity, but not with CVD (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.03) and progression towards multimorbidity. Conclusions These findings suggest that the inverse relationships between physical activity and risk of major chronic diseases may be explained by the maintenance of tissue integrity and the proper regulation of immune and metabolic processes. Further studies are needed to determine the causal nature of these associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→