Parental occupation and Ewing's sarcoma: Pooled and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Etiologic data on Ewing's sarcoma family of tumors (ESFT) are limited, with only 5 case-control studies reported. Interesting associations, particularly related to parental occupation, have been noted, but results are somewhat inconsistent. We conducted a pooled analysis of 3 case-control studies to assess the overall associations between parental occupation and ESFT. The pooled analysis provided data on parental occupational exposure on 199 cases of ESFT and 1,451 controls. The pooled odds ratio for the periconception and gestation periods were 2.3 (95% CI = 1.3-4.1) for children whose fathers had worked on farms and 3.9 (95% CI = 1.6-9.9) for those whose mothers had farmed. For the periconception and gestation periods, there was a 3.5-fold increased risk for those with both parents having farmed and a doubling of risk for those with at least one parent having farmed; pattern of increasing risk with increasing number of years of postnatal parental exposure to farms was seen. No other occupational group (or more narrowly defined occupations) had other than minor inconsistent associations with the occurrence of ESFT. In addition, we conducted a meta-analysis of farm occupation (a main risk factor) including all 4 case-control studies that collected required information to consider parental occupation. Results of the meta-analysis were consistent with those from the pooled analysis. This collaborative analysis of available individual data on parental occupation and ESFT in the offspring provides evidence supporting the hypothesis of an association between ESFT and parental occupation in farming.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".