MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1252950162 · doi:10.1289/ehp.1409294

Occupation and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Its Subtypes: A Pooled Analysis from the InterLymph Consortium

2015· article· en· W1252950162 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea ’t Mannetje, Anneclaire J. De Roos, Paolo Boffetta, Roel Vermeulen, Geza Benke, Lin Fritschi, Paul Brennan, Lenka Foretová, Marc Maynadié, Nikolaus Becker, Alexandra Nieters, Anthony Staines, Marcello Campagna, Brian C.‐H. Chiu, Jacqueline Clavel, Sílvia de Sanjosé, Patricia Hartge, Elizabeth A. Holly, Paige M. Bracci, Martha S. Linet, Alain Monnereau, Laurent Orsi, Mark P. Purdue, Nathaniel Rothman, Qing Lan, Eleanor Kane, Adele Seniori Costantini, Lucia Miligi, John J. Spinelli, Tongzhang Zheng, Pierluigi Cocco, Anne Kricker

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsLymphomaOdds ratioMedicineInternal medicineConfidence intervalChronic lymphocytic leukemiaFollicular lymphomaHodgkin lymphomaOncologyLeukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Various occupations have been associated with an elevated risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but results have been inconsistent across studies. OBJECTIVES: We investigated occupational risk of NHL and of four common NHL subtypes with particular focus on occupations of a priori interest. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 10,046 cases and 12,025 controls from 10 NHL studies participating in the InterLymph Consortium. We harmonized the occupational coding using the 1968 International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-1968) and grouped occupations previously associated with NHL into 25 a priori groups. Odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for center, age, and sex were determined for NHL overall and for the following four subtypes: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). RESULTS: We confirmed previously reported positive associations between NHL and farming occupations [field crop/vegetable farm workers OR = 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05, 1.51; general farm workers OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.37]; we also confirmed associations of NHL with specific occupations such as women's hairdressers (OR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.74), charworkers/cleaners (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.36), spray-painters (OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.30, 3.29), electrical wiremen (OR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.54), and carpenters (OR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.93). We observed subtype-specific associations for DLBCL and CLL/SLL in women's hairdressers and for DLBCL and PTCL in textile workers. CONCLUSIONS: Our pooled analysis of 10 international studies adds to evidence suggesting that farming, hairdressing, and textile industry-related exposures may contribute to NHL risk. Associations with women's hairdresser and textile occupations may be specific for certain NHL subtypes. CITATION: 't Mannetje A, De Roos AJ, Boffetta P, Vermeulen R, Benke G, Fritschi L, Brennan P, Foretova L, Maynadié M, Becker N, Nieters A, Staines A, Campagna M, Chiu B, Clavel J, de Sanjose S, Hartge P, Holly EA, Bracci P, Linet MS, Monnereau A, Orsi L, Purdue MP, Rothman N, Lan Q, Kane E, Seniori Costantini A, Miligi L, Spinelli JJ, Zheng T, Cocco P, Kricker A. 2016. Occupation and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and its subtypes: a pooled analysis from the InterLymph Consortium. Environ Health Perspect 124:396-405; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409294.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.012
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207