MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965713922 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.83

Occupational exposure to endocrine disruptors and lymphoma risk in a multi-centric European study

2015· article· en· W1965713922 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Costas, Claire Infante‐Rivard, J-P Zock, Martie van Tongeren, Paolo Boffetta, Alexandre Cusson, Clàudia Robles, Delphine Casabonne, Yolanda Benavente, Nikolaus Becker, Paul Brennan, Lenka Foretová, M Maynadié, Anthony Staines, Alexandra Nieters, Pierluigi Cocco, Sílvia de Sanjosé

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill University
FundersUniversitat de BarcelonaBundesamt für StrahlenschutzAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadFondation de FranceMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaEuropean CommissionWorld Health Organization
KeywordsEndocrine systemLymphomaMedicineOccupational exposureIncidence (geometry)Internal medicinePhysiologyOncologyEnvironmental healthHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Incidence rates of lymphoma are usually higher in men than in women, and oestrogens may protect against lymphoma. METHODS: We evaluated occupational exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) among 2457 controls and 2178 incident lymphoma cases and subtypes from the European Epilymph study. RESULTS: Over 30 years of exposure to EDCs compared to no exposure was associated with a 24% increased risk of mature B-cell neoplasms (P-trend=0.02). Associations were observed among men, but not women. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged occupational exposure to endocrine disruptors seems to be moderately associated with some lymphoma subtypes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207