Exposure to welding fumes increases lung cancer risk among light smokers but not among heavy smokers: evidence from two case–control studies in <scp>M</scp>ontreal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated relationships between occupational exposure to gas and arc welding fumes and the risk of lung cancer among workers exposed to these agents throughout the spectrum of industries. Two population-based case-control studies were conducted in Montreal. Study I (1979-1986) included 857 cases and 1066 controls, and Study II (1996-2001) comprised 736 cases and 894 controls. Detailed job histories were obtained by interview and evaluated by an expert team of chemist-hygienists to estimate degree of exposure to approximately 300 substances for each job. Gas and arc welding fumes were among the agents evaluated. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of lung cancer using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking history and other covariates. The two studies provided similar results, so a pooled analysis was conducted. Among all subjects, no significant association was found between lung cancer and gas welding fumes (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 0.9-1.4) or arc welding fumes (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.8-1.2). However, when restricting attention to light smokers, there was an increased risk of lung cancer in relation to gas welding fumes (OR = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.7-4.8) and arc welding fumes (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.3-3.8), with even higher OR estimates among workers with the highest cumulative exposures. In conclusion, there was no detectable excess risk of lung cancer due to welding fumes among moderate to heavy smokers; but among light smokers we found an excess risk related to both types of welding fumes.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it