Exposure to titanium dioxide and risk of lung cancer in a population-based study from Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the lung cancer risk from exposure to titanium dioxide, an important pigment with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals but sparse data for humans. METHODS: The risk of lung cancer among residents in Montreal, Canada, was analyzed, including 857 histologically confirmed cases of lung cancer diagnosed during 1979-1985 among men aged 35-70 years and a group of referents comprising 533 randomly selected, healthy residents and 533 persons with cancer in organs other than the lung. Exposure to titanium dioxide and other titanium compounds was assessed by a team of industrial hygienists on the basis of a detailed occupational questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty-three cases and 43 referents were classified as exposed to titanium dioxide. The odds ratio was 0.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.5-1.5]. No trend was apparent according to the estimated frequency, level, or duration of exposure. The odds ratio was 1.0 (95% CI 0.3-2.7) for medium or high exposure for at least 5 years. Few subjects were classified as exposed to titanium dioxide fumes or to other titanium compounds, but the risk of lung cancer was nonsignificantly increased for exposure to these agents. CONCLUSIONS: Although misclassification of exposure and low exposure prevalence might have resulted in false negative results, this study does not suggest that occupational exposure to titanium dioxide increases the risk of lung cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".