Rectal cancer and occupational risk factors: A hypothesis-generating, exposure-based case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1979, a hypothesis-generating, population-based case-control study was undertaken in Montreal, Canada, to explore the association between occupational exposure to 294 substances, 130 occupations and industries, and various cancers. Interviews were carried out with 3, 630 histologically confirmed cancer cases, of whom 257 had rectal cancer, and with 533 population controls, to obtain detailed job history and data on potential confounders. The job history of each subject was evaluated by a team of chemists and hygienists and translated into occupational exposures. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, education, cigarette smoking, beer consumption, body mass index, and respondent status were performed using population controls and cancer controls, e.g., 1,295 subjects with cancers at sites other than the rectum, lung, colon, rectosigmoid junction, small intestine, and peritoneum. We present here the results based on cancer controls. The following substances showed some association with rectal cancer: rubber dust, rubber pyrolysis products, cotton dust, wool fibers, rayon fibers, a group of solvents (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, acetone, aliphatic ketones, aliphatic esters, toluene, styrene), polychloroprene, glass fibers, formaldehyde, extenders, and ionizing radiation. The independent effect of many of these substances could not be disentangled as many were highly correlated with each other.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".