Printed in U.S.A. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg186 Physical Activity and the Risk of Lung Cancer in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population-based case-control study of 2,128 cases with histologically confirmed incident lung cancer and 3,106 population controls aged 20–76 years was conducted to assess the impact of recreational physical activity on lung cancer risk in Canada in 1994–1997. The multivariable-adjusted odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals for the second, third, and fourth quartiles versus the lowest quartile of total recreational physical activity were, respectively, 0.82 (95 % confidence interval: 0.68, 0.98), 0.76 (95 % confidence interval: 0.63, 0.92), and 0.73 (95 % confidence interval: 0.60, 0.89) (p for trend = 0.0008). The risk reduction was observed for both men and women and was attributed to both moderate and vigorous activities. A greater risk reduction was found for squamous cell carcinoma in women, small cell carcinoma in men, and other types/unspecified histologic subtypes in both genders. The physical-activity-associated risk reduction was more profound among smokers and those with low and medium body mass indexes. This study provides additional evidence that recreational physical activity reduces lung cancer risk. More studies are needed to confirm the differences between histologic subtypes and between genders and to address the underlying biologic mechanisms. case-control studies; exercise; histology; lung neoplasms; recreation; smoking Abbreviations: IGF, insulin-like growth factor; IGFBP, insulin-like growth factor binding protein; MET, metabolic equivalent; NECSS, National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.475 | 0.126 |
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".