Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and lung cancer by histological type: A pooled analysis of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the association between exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer risk is well established, few studies with sufficient power have examined the association by histological type. In this study, we evaluated the secondhand smoke-lung cancer relationship by histological type based on pooled data from 18 case-control studies in the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO), including 2,504 cases and 7,276 control who were never smokers and 10,184 cases and 7,176 controls who were ever smokers. We used multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, pack-years of smoking, and study. Among never smokers, the odds ratios (OR) comparing those ever exposed to secondhand smoke with those never exposed were 1.31 (95% CI: 1.17-1.45) for all histological types combined, 1.26 (95% CI: 1.10-1.44) for adenocarcinoma, 1.41 (95% CI: 0.99-1.99) for squamous cell carcinoma, 1.48 (95% CI: 0.89-2.45) for large cell lung cancer, and 3.09 (95% CI: 1.62-5.89) for small cell lung cancer. The estimated association with secondhand smoke exposure was greater for small cell lung cancer than for nonsmall cell lung cancers (OR=2.11, 95% CI: 1.11-4.04). This analysis is the largest to date investigating the relation between exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Our study provides more precise estimates of the impact of secondhand smoke on the major histological types of lung cancer, indicates the association with secondhand smoke is stronger for small cell lung cancer than for the other histological types, and suggests the importance of intervention against exposure to secondhand smoke in lung 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it