RISK OF LUNG CANCER AND MESOTHELIOMA ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the evidence about the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure comes from studies focusing on specific groups of workers with high exposure levels such as miners and asbestos textile workers. We present here results of our population-based case-control study of cancer and occupational exposures conducted in Montreal in the 1980s, thereby providing estimates of risks associated with exposure to asbestos incurred at various levels and over a wide range of occupations. Interviews were carried out with 3630 histologically-confirmed incident cancer cases (19 cancer sites), of whom 857 were lung cancers and 12 were mesotheliomas, and with 533 population controls. A detailed job history was obtained, as well as data on potential confounders. Each job held by each subject was evaluated by a team of chemists/hygienists and translated into a list of 300 potential exposures, including asbestos. In total, about 19% of study subjects had asbestos exposure. For each case series-lung cancer and mesothelioma, unconditional logistic regression analyses were performed using both the population controls (n = 533) and cancer control series (n = 1349 for lung cancer; n = 2860 for mesothelioma). Analyses focusing on lung cancer were adjusted for age, socio-economic status, respondent status, ethnicity and smoking as well as exposure to selected occupational carcinogens. Analyses focusing on mesothelioma were adjusted for age, socio-economic status and respondent status. For both lung cancer and mesothelioma, it turned out that results were similar using one or other control group; we present results using cancer controls. The odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer associated with exposure to asbestos was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 0.8–1.5) for workers exposed at the non-substantial level and 1.9 (95%CI = 1.0–3.6) for those exposed at the substantial level. The OR for mesothelioma associated with non-substantial exposure to asbestos was 3.1 (95%CI = 0.8–12.3) and 15.0 (95%CI = 2.9–78.6) for exposure at the substantial level. All asbestos-exposed subjects were thought to have been exposed to chrysotile fibers. While it is difficult to ascertain, there was an attempt to identify the subset that had also been exposed to amphiboles. The subset thus earmarked experienced somewhat lower risk of lung cancer and higher risk of mesothelioma than the rest of the asbestos-exposed workers, but none of these differences (between amphibole-exposed and other asbestos-exposed workers) were significantly different. In conclusion, low levels of occupational exposure to asbestos were not associated with an excess risk of lung cancer while higher levels were. Excess risks of mesothelioma were manifest at low and high levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".