Risk of lung cancer following exposure to carbon black, titanium dioxide and talc: Results from two case–control studies in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently evaluated the carcinogenicity of three poorly soluble weakly-toxic substances: carbon black, titanium dioxide and talc. Though there is evidence of carcinogenity in experimental animals for these substances, the evidence in humans is sparse and equivocal. In the context of two large population based case-control studies of lung cancer carried out in Montreal, we were able to study the possible relationships between the exposure to each of these substances and subsequent risk of lung cancer. We were able to distinguish talc used for industrial purposes from that used for cosmetic purposes. Interviews for Study I were conducted in 1979-1986 (857 cases, 533 population controls, 1,349 cancer controls) and interviews for Study II were conducted in 1996-2001 (1,236 cases and 1,512 controls). Detailed lifetime job histories were elicited, and a team of hygienists and chemists evaluated the evidence of exposure to a host of occupational substances. Lung cancer risk was analysed in relation to each exposure, adjusting for several potential confounders, including smoking. Subjects with occupational exposure to carbon black, titanium dioxide, industrial talc and cosmetic talc did not experience any detectable excess risk of lung cancer. The results are consistent with the recent evaluations of the IARC Monographs.
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".