Lung cancer risk associated with occupational exposure to nickel, chromium VI, and cadmium in two population‐based case–control studies in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nickel, chromium VI, and cadmium have been identified as lung carcinogens in highly exposed cohorts. The purpose of this study was to examine the etiological link between lung cancer and these metals in occupations, that usually entail lower levels of exposure than those seen in historical cohorts. METHODS: Two population-based case-control studies were conducted in Montreal, from 1979 to 1986 and from 1996 to 2001, comprising 1,598 cases and 1,965 controls. A detailed job history was obtained to evaluate lifetime occupational exposure to many agents, including nickel, chromium VI, and cadmium compounds. RESULTS: Lung cancer odds ratios were increased only among former or non-smokers: 2.5 (95% CI: 1.3-4.7) for nickel exposure, 2.4 (95% CI: 1.2-4.8) for chromium VI, and 4.7 (95% CI: 1.5-14.3) for cadmium. The metals did not increase risk among smokers. CONCLUSIONS: While excess risks due to these metal compounds were barely discernable among smokers, carcinogenic effects were seen among non-smokers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".