MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009547487 · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3182949ae7

Long-term Residential Exposure to Air Pollution and Lung Cancer Risk

2013· article· en· W2009547487 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Perry Hystad, Paul A. Demers, Kenneth C. Johnson, Richard M. Carpiano, Michael Bräuer

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaCancer Care OntarioOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLung cancerConfidence intervalOdds ratioAir pollutionEnvironmental healthPopulationNitrogen dioxideIncidence (geometry)MedicineEnvironmental scienceParticulatesToxicologyMeteorologyGeographyPathologyInternal medicineChemistryMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is accumulating evidence that air pollution causes lung cancer. Still, questions remain about exposure misclassification, the components of air pollution responsible, and the histological subtypes of lung cancer that might be produced. METHODS: We investigated lung cancer incidence in relation to long-term exposure to three ambient air pollutants and proximity to major roads, using a Canadian population-based case-control study. We compared 2,390 incident, histologically confirmed lung cancer cases with 3,507 population controls in eight Canadian provinces from 1994 to 1997. We developed spatiotemporal models for the whole country to estimate annual residential exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3) over a 20-year exposure period. We carried out a subanalysis in urban centers, using exposures derived from fixed-site air pollution monitors, and also examined traffic proximity measures. Hierarchical logistic regression models incorporated a comprehensive set of individual and geographic covariates. RESULTS: The increase in lung cancer incidence (expressed as fully adjusted odds ratios [ORs]) was 1.29 (95% confidence interval = 0.95-1.76) with a ten-unit increase in PM2.5 (μg/m), 1.11 (1.00-1.24) with a ten-unit increase in NO2 (ppb), and 1.09 (0.85-1.39) with a ten-unit increase in O3 (ppb). The urban monitor-based subanalyses generally supported the national results, with larger associations for NO2 (OR = 1.34; 1.07-1.69) per 10 ppb increase. No dose-response trends were observed, and no clear relationships were found for specific histological cancer subtypes. There was the suggestion of increased risk among those living within 100 m of highways, but not among those living near major roads. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer incidence in this Canadian study was increased most strongly with NO2 and PM2.5 exposure. Further investigation is needed into possible effects of O3 on development of lung cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations176
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207