The Inclusion of Women in Studies of Occupational Cancer: A Review of the Epidemiologic Literature From 1991–2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since the early 1990s, researchers have been concerned with the low rate at which women are included in epidemiologic studies of occupational cancer. A previous evaluation determined that one-third of articles published between 1970 and 1990 included women. METHODS: To assess whether there has been an improvement in recent years, papers on occupational cancer between 1991 and 2009 were reviewed in fifteen journals. RESULTS: The proportion of articles that included men remained stable around 90%, while the proportion of articles that included women increased substantially, from 39% in 1991-1995 to 62% in 2006-2009. Articles that assessed risk among men only or men and women presented a higher number of risk estimates and were more likely to evaluate dose-response relationships than studies including women. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in the inclusion of women in studies of occupational cancer, disparities remain in the number of studies of occupational cancer and depth of analysis in studies that included women.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".