MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2069475544 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-3777

Abstract 3777: Diesel motor exhaust and lung cancer risk in a pooled analysis from case-control studies in Europe and Canada

2010· article· en· W2069475544 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ann Olsson, Per Gustavsson, Hans Kromhout, Susan Peters, Roel Vermeulen, Irene Brüske, Beate Pesch, Tomas Brüning, Jack Siemiatycki, Javier Pintos, Heinz‐Erich Wichmann, Dario Consonni, Nils Plato, Franco Merletti, Dario Mirabelli, Lorenzo Richiardi, Karl‐Heinz Jöckel, Wolfgang Ahrens, Hermann Pohlabeln, Lissowska Jolanta, Neonila Szeszenia‐Dąbrowska, Adrian Cassidy, Давид Заридзе, Isabelle Stücker, Simone Benhamou, Vladimír Bencko, Lenka Foretová, Vladimí­r Janout, Péter Rudnai, Eleonóra Fabiánová, Dana Mateș, Bas Bueno‐de‐Mesquita, Isabelle Groß, Véronique Benhaı̈m-Luzon, Paolo Boffetta, Kurt Straíf

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerConfoundingOdds ratioEnvironmental healthConfidence intervalEpidemiologyLogistic regressionJob-exposure matrixCase-control studyCancerDemographyToxicologyInternal medicineOccupational exposureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Diesel-motor exhaust (DME) is classified by IARC as probably carcinogenic to humans. The epidemiological evidence is evaluated as limited since many studies lack adequate information on tobacco smoking and only few studies reported on exposure-response relationships. Our objective is to investigate the risk of lung cancer following occupational exposure to DME, while controlling for smoking and potential occupational confounders. Methods: The SYNERGY project pooled information on lifetime work histories and tobacco smoking from more than 13300 cases and 16300 controls from case-control studies conducted in 12 European countries and Canada. A job exposure matrix based on ISCO codes, assigning no (0), low (1) or high (2) exposure to DME was applied to determine level of exposure to DME. Cumulative exposure was defined as: ∑(level2 * duration). Odds ratios (OR) of lung cancer and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by unconditional logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, study, pack-years and time since quitting smoking, and ever employment in a “Group A” job, i.e. occupations with established lung cancer risk. Results: Workers exposed to low levels of occupational DME exposure had an increased risk of lung cancer after 40 years of exposure OR 1.31 (95% CI 1.14-1.51), while workers exposed to high DME levels experienced a similar risk already after short duration (<10 years) OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15-1.46. Cumulative DME exposure showed a significant exposure-response trend (p-value <0.000) with an OR of 1.31 (95% CI 1.20-1.44) in the highest quartile. These results were similar in workers never employed in “Group A“ jobs, lending support to the assumption that confounding due to other occupational exposures was not responsible for the observed risk. Analyses in sub-populations of women and never-smokers also indicated an increased risk of lung cancer following occupational DME exposure. Conclusion: Our results indicate that occupational exposure to DME is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3777.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→