Occupational risk factors for renal cell carcinoma in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the role of workplace exposures on the risk of renal cell cancer. METHODS: A population-based case-control study was undertaken in Montreal to assess the association between hundreds of occupational circumstances and several cancer sites, including the kidney. A total of 142 male patients with pathologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma, 1900 controls with cancer at other sites and 533 population-based controls were interviewed. Detailed job histories and relevant data on potential confounders were obtained. A group of chemists-hygienists evaluated each job reported and translated them into a history of occupational exposures using a checklist of 294 substances. Multivariate logistic regression models using either population, cancer controls, or a pool of both groups were used to estimate odds ratios. RESULTS: There were some indications of excess risks among printers, nursery workers (gardening), aircraft mechanics, farmers, and horticulturists, as well as in the following industries: printing-related services, defense services, wholesale trade, and retail trade. Notwithstanding the low precision of many of the odds ratio estimates, the following workplace exposures showed some evidence of excess risk: chromium compounds, chromium (VI) compounds, inorganic acid solutions, styrene-butadiene rubber, ozone, hydrogen sulphide, ultraviolet radiation, hair dust, felt dust, jet fuel engine emissions, jet fuel, aviation gasoline, phosphoric acid and inks. CONCLUSIONS: For most of these associations there exist no, or very little, previous data. Some associations provide suggestive evidence for further studies.
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) | 0.001 | 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".