MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022656762 · doi:10.1002/ajim.20881

Absence of radiographic asbestosis and the risk of lung cancer among asbestos‐cement workers: Extended follow‐up of a cohort

2010· article· en· W2022656762 on OpenAlexaffabout
Murray M. Finkelstein

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsbestosisMedicineAsbestosAsbestos cementLung cancerPneumoconiosisEnvironmental healthPopulationOccupational diseaseLungPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been a matter of controversy whether there is an increased risk of lung cancer among asbestos-exposed workers without radiographic asbestosis. A previous study of lung cancer risk among asbestos-cement workers has been updated with an additional 12 years of follow-up. METHODS: Subjects had received radiographic examination at 20 and 25 years from first exposure to asbestos. Radiographs were interpreted by a single National Institute of Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified B-reader using the 1971 International Labor Office (ILO) Classification of the pneumoconioses as reference standard. Asbestosis was defined as an ILO coding of 1/0 or higher. Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs) were calculated using the general population of Ontario as reference. RESULTS: Among asbestos-cement workers without radiographic asbestosis at 20 years latency the lung cancer SMR was 3.84 (2.24-6.14). Among workers without asbestosis when examined at 25 years latency the SMR was 3.69 (1.59-7.26). CONCLUSIONS: Workers from an Ontario asbestos-cement factory who did not have radiographic asbestosis at 20 or 25 years from first exposure to asbestos continued to have an increased risk of death from lung cancer during an additional 12 years of follow-up.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Industrial MedicineSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207