MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025659707 · doi:10.1289/ehp.7403

Chlorination Disinfection By-products and Pancreatic Cancer Risk

2005· article· en· W2025659707 on OpenAlexafffund
Minh Tri Phan, Nicholas Birkett, Kenneth C. Johnson, Daniel Krewski, Paul J. Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of OttawaInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersQueen's UniversityHealth CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsPancreatic cancerOdds ratioCase-control studyMedicineChlorineEnvironmental healthCancerLogistic regressionPopulationToxicologyBladder cancerInternal medicineChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlorination disinfection by-products (CDBPs) are produced during the treatment of water with chlorine to remove bacterial contamination. CDBPs have been associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. There is also some evidence that they may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer. We report results from a population-based case-control study of 486 incident cases of pancreatic cancer and 3,596 age- and sex-matched controls. Exposure to chlorination by-products was estimated by linking lifetime residential histories to two different databases containing information on CDBP levels in municipal water supplies. Logistic regression analysis found no evidence of increased pancreatic cancer risk at higher CDBP concentrations (all odds ratios < 1.3). Null findings were also obtained assuming a latency period for pancreatic cancer induction of 3, 8, or 13 years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207