Cohort cancer incidence among pulp and paper mill workers in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A study was conducted to investigate cancer risks in a cohort of pulp and paper workers. METHODS: All male workers with > or =1 years of employment in 14 pulp and paper mills in 1950-1992 were studied. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were used to compare the cancer incidence of the cohort with that of the Canadian male population. Record linkage with the National Cancer Registry was performed using the generalized iterative record linkage method. RESULTS: Altogether 1756 cancer cases were observed in the entire cohort. For > or =15 years of work, the entire cohort had significantly increased SIR values for pleural and prostate cancer and skin melanoma; there was also a significantly increased risk for skin melanoma among workers in the kraft process only, rectal cancer among workers in the sulfite process only, and stomach and prostate cancer and all leukemias combined among workers in both the kraft and sulfite processes. A separate analysis comparing workers in pulping and papermaking with those in the pulping process only did not reveal any difference in cancer risk and hence did not modify the results. The SIR values for skin melanoma were not significantly increased in a comparison using the British Columbia male population. Nine of 10 pleural cancers were mesotheliomas, which likely reflect past asbestos exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that long-term work in the pulp and paper industry is associated with excess risks of prostate and stomach cancers and all leukemias for work in both kraft and sulfite processes and of rectal cancer for work in the sulfite process only.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".