Personal sun exposure and risk of non Hodgkin lymphoma: A pooled analysis from the Interlymph Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004-2007 4 independent case-control studies reported evidence that sun exposure might protect against NHL; a fifth, in women only, found increased risks of NHL associated with a range of sun exposure measurements. These 5 studies are the first to examine the association between personal sun exposure and NHL. We report here on the relationship between sun exposure and NHL in a pooled analysis of 10 studies participating in the International Lymphoma Epidemiology Consortium (InterLymph), including the 5 published studies. Ten case-control studies covering 8,243 cases and 9,697 controls in the USA, Europe and Australia contributed original data for participants of European origin to the pooled analysis. Four kinds of measures of self-reported personal sun exposure were assessed at interview. A two-stage estimation method was used in which study-specific odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for potential confounders including smoking and alcohol use, were obtained from unconditional logistic regression models and combined in random-effects models to obtain the pooled estimates. Risk of NHL fell significantly with the composite measure of increasing recreational sun exposure, pooled OR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.91) for the highest exposure category (p for trend 0.01). A downtrend in risk with increasing total sun exposure was not statistically significant. The protective effect of recreational sun exposure was statistically significant at 18-40 years of age and in the 10 years before diagnosis, and for B cell, but not T cell, lymphomas. Increased recreational sun exposure may protect against NHL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".