MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973821948 · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e3181b68cef

Risk of Mesothelioma and Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Man-Made Vitreous Fibers: Evidence From Two Case-Control Studies in Montreal, Canada

2009· article· en· W1973821948 on OpenAlexaffabout
Javier Pintos, Marie‐Élise Parent, Bruce W. Case, Marie‐Claude Rousseau, Jack Siemiatycki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsbestosMesotheliomaOdds ratioMedicineConfidence intervalCohortCohort studyPopulationCase-control studyAmphiboleEnvironmental healthPathologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of exposure to occupational asbestos and man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) across a wide range of occupations on risk of mesothelioma. METHODOLOGY: Two population-based case-control studies (1979-1986 and 1996-2001) provided 35 histologically confirmed mesothelioma cases and 1965 controls. A detailed job history was obtained to evaluate occupational exposure to many agents, including asbestos and MMVF. RESULTS: The mesothelioma odds ratio for exposure to any asbestos type was 3.7 (95% confidence interval = 1.7 to 7.8). The subset exposed to amphibole fibers experienced an odds ratio = 7.0 (95% confidence interval = 2.7 to 18.5). Effects of MMVF could not be disentangled from those of asbestos. DISCUSSION: In workers with exposure levels lower than in most historical cohort studies and across a wide range of industries, a strong association was found between asbestos, especially when it was amphibole, and mesothelioma.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207