MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041015338 · doi:10.1179/107735202800338669

Occupational Histories of Cancer Patients in a Canadian Cancer Treatment Center and the Generated Hypothesis Regarding Breast Cancer and Farming

2002· article· en· W2041015338 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineCancerLogistic regressionOdds ratioRespondentEnvironmental healthDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational exposures increase cancer risks. The Windsor Regional Cancer Centre in Windsor, Ontario, was the first Canadian cancer treatment center to collect the work histories of its patients, which were recorded using a computer-based questionnaire. Breast cancer cases represented the largest respondent group. The lifetime occupational histories of 299 women with newly diagnosed breast cancers were compared with those of 237 women with other cancers. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for age, social class, and education. The OR for women < or = 55 years of age with breast cancer who had ever farmed, compared with women of the same age with other cancers, was 9.05 (95% CI 1.06, 77.43). Patients' occupational histories can help to inform understanding of cancer etiology and prevention. This effort points to a need for investigation of the possible association between breast cancer and agricultural hazards such as pesticides.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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