Occupational Exposure to Lead Compounds and Risk of Cancer among Men: A Population-based Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently classified inorganic lead as a probable carcinogen, while organic lead remained unclassifiable. Uncertainty persists because of limited epidemiologic evidence. The authors addressed the relation between occupational exposure to lead and the risk of 11 types of cancer among men in a case-control study conducted in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in the 1980s. Incident cases (n = 3,730) and general population controls (n = 533) were interviewed to elicit information on job history and potential confounders. Expert chemists translated each job into a list of substances to which the subject had potentially been exposed. Exposure to lead was classified into three categories: organic lead (3% of subjects ever exposed), inorganic lead (17%), and lead in gasoline emissions (39%). Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by logistic regression using two control groups: general population controls and cancer controls. Stomach cancer was associated with organic lead when the authors used population controls (odds ratio (OR) = 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 7.3) and cancer controls (OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1, 3.8) and with substantial exposure to lead in gasoline emissions when they used cancer controls (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 5.9). There was no association with inorganic lead and little evidence for associations with other cancer types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".