MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046299412 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605791

Differential effects of smoking on lung cancer mortality before and after household stove improvement in Xuanwei, China

2010· article· en· W2046299412 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S. Chapman, Minxue Shen, Jay H. Lubin, Debra T. Silverman, X. He, H. Dean Hosgood, Bingshu E. Chen, Preetha Rajaraman, Neil E. Caporaso, Joseph F. Fraumeni, A. Blair, Qing Lan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer InstituteNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsStoveLung cancerMedicineEnvironmental healthHazard ratioProportional hazards modelSmokeCohortConfidence intervalCohort studyDemographyCancerSurgeryInternal medicineWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Xuanwei County, Yunnan Province, China, lung cancer mortality rates in both males and females are among the highest in China. METHODS: We evaluated differential effects of smoking on lung cancer mortality before and after household stove improvement with chimney to reduce exposure to smoky coal emissions in the unique cohort in Xuanwei, China. Effects of independent variables on lung cancer mortality were measured as hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a multivariable Cox regression model that included separate time-dependent variables for smoking duration (years) before and after stove improvement. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We found that the effect of smoking on lung cancer risk becomes considerably stronger after chimney installation and consequent reduction of indoor coal smoke exposure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207