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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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