Factors Associated With the Prevalence of Prostate Cancer in Rural Saskatchewan: The Saskatchewan Rural Health Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canadian males, and it is the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths in men. Some studies suggest that occupational exposure may be associated with prostate cancer. However, the etiology of prostate cancer is ambiguous. The purpose of this study was to assess the rural occupational exposure, including farming, as a determinant of prostate cancer in rural men. We investigated the prevalence of prostate cancer and its putative relationship between rural exposures in the Saskatchewan province of Canada. METHODS: In 2010, a baseline mailed survey was conducted of 11,982 households located in 4 geographic regions (southwest, southeast, northwest, and northeast) of rural Saskatchewan, Canada. The questionnaires collected information on individual and contextual determinants from a rural population of men. In total 2,938 males older than 45 years were included in the logistic regression analysis. FINDINGS: The age-standardized prevalence of prostate cancer was 3.32%. Farm residence was a significant risk factor associated with prevalence of prostate cancer while farming occupation and duration were not. Men who were exposed to insecticides and fungicides together (OR [95% CI] = 2.23 [1.15-4.33], P = .02) at work showed an increased potential risk compared to the nonexposed. The effect of farm/nonfarm residence on prevalence of prostate cancer differed depending on personal smoking history and family history of cancer. CONCLUSION: Workplace exposure to insecticides and fungicides together were statistically significantly associated with prevalence of prostate cancer.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".