MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980569140 · doi:10.1186/1476-069x-7-44

Occupational exposures and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Canadian case-control study

2008· article· en· W1980569140 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chandima Karunanayake, Helen H. McDuffie, James A. Dosman, John J. Spinelli, Punam Pahwa

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionDemographyHodgkin lymphomaEnvironmental healthConditional logistic regressionPopulationResidenceLymphomaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective was to study the association between Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) and occupational exposures related to long held occupations among males in six provinces of Canada. METHODS: A population based case-control study was conducted from 1991 to 1994. Males with newly diagnosed NHL (ICD-10) were stratified by province of residence and age group. A total of 513 incident cases and 1506 population based controls were included in the analysis. Conditional logistic regression was conducted to fit statistical models. RESULTS: Based on conditional logistic regression modeling, the following factors independently increased the risk of NHL: farmer and machinist as long held occupations; constant exposure to diesel exhaust fumes; constant exposure to ionizing radiation (radium); and personal history of another cancer. Men who had worked for 20 years or more as farmer and machinist were the most likely to develop NHL. CONCLUSION: An increased risk of developing NHL is associated with the following: long held occupations of faer and machinist; exposure to diesel fumes; and exposure to ionizing radiation (radium). The risk of NHL increased with the duration of employment as a farmer or machinist.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental HealthSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207