MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Update on the Research Activities of the Environmental and Occupational Working Group for the Ontario Health Study (OHS)

2009· article· en· W2000552714 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shelley A. Harris, Len Ritter, Tye E. Arbuckle, Aaron Blair, Leanne Blahut, Jim Bus, J Christopher Hall, Scott A. Mabury, Loraine D. Marrett, Anthony Miller, Victoria Nadalin, Pat E. Rasmussen, Paul J. Villeneuve, Amanda J. Wheeler, J. McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreCancer Care OntarioAir CanadaOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchSGS (Canada)University of OttawaHealth CanadaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthExposure assessmentBiobankOccupational exposureEnvironmental scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ISEE-0046 Background and Objectives: An Environmental and Occupational (E-O) Working Group has been created to advise on research priorities and develop the E-O component of the Ontario Health Study (OHS). In the next five years, 150,000 participants will be recruited into the OHS. Information from questionnaires, physical measures, biospecimens and individual and community level environmental data will be collected to identify and characterize occupational and environmental causes of cancer. Methods: The E-O Working Group met in January 2009 to discuss prioritization and selection of exposures and/or contaminants for measurement, to develop a proposal for an “Envirobank,” and to develop the E-O questionnaires that will be sent to participants 3 months after baseline data collection. Members were asked to recommend key contaminants or exposures that should be given immediate consideration for measurement in the OHS. Results: Priority exposures include: aflatoxins, brominated flame retardants, EMF, metals, PAHs, perchlorate, perfluorochemicals, pharmaceutical estrogens, NOx, phenols (nonylphenol, bisphenol-A), particulates, select pesticides, phthalates, radon, shift work, solvents, water chlorination byproducts, and WiFi exposures. House dust and drinking water were recommended as the most useful samples to collect for the Envirobank to provide information on priority contaminants. Also recommended was the storage of residual urine (not sent to the Biorepository) from spot urine samples collected at the OHS assessment centers. A proposal to include indoor radon monitoring in a pilot study of 1500 individuals from 3 communities is being developed with the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada. The Environmental Exposures and Residential History questionnaire is under development using the priorities outlined above. The E-O group is also working with the newly established Occupational Cancer Research Center in Ontario in developing the Occupational History and Exposures Questionnaire. Conclusions: The OHS presents a unique opportunity to collect environmental and occupational exposure data and provide more detailed information on absorbed dose for a population-based prospective cohort.

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)0.012
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207