Lifetime residential and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in never-smoking women, Canada 1994-97
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the risk of lung cancer among never-smokers living with a spouse who smokes has been extensively studied, the impact of lifetime residential and workplace environmental tobacco smoke has received less attention. As part of a large population-based case-control study of lung cancer, we collected lifetime residential and occupational passive smoking information from 71 women with lung cancer and 761 healthy control subjects, all of whom reported being lifetime nonsmokers. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer associated with residential passive exposure only was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-2.8). Although more years of and more intense residential passive smoke exposure tended to be associated with higher risk estimates, no clear dose-response relationship was evident. The OR for women with passive exposure as a child and as an adult was 1.63 (95% CI 0.8-3.5) and for those only exposed as an adult 1.20 (95%CI 0.5-3.0). Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke only in the workplace was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.27 (95% CI 0.4-4.0). Risks associated with increasing occupational exposure year tertiles were 1.24, 1.71 and 1.71. Total smoker-years of residential and occupational exposure combined resulted in a statistically significant trend (linear test for trend p = 0.05) with ORs for tertiles of exposure of 0.83, 1.54 and 1.82. Our results are consistent with the literature suggesting that long-term, regular exposure to either residential or occupational environmental tobacco smoke is associated with increased lung cancer risk in never-smoking women.
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".