Absence of radiographic asbestosis and the risk of lung cancer among asbestos‐cement workers: Extended follow‐up of a cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".