Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only about 30% of cases of breast cancer can be explained by accepted risk factors. Occupational studies have shown associations between the incidence of breast cancer and exposure to contaminants that are found in ambient air. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether the incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer is associated with exposure to urban air pollution. METHODS: We used data from a case-control study conducted in Montreal, Quebec, in 1996-1997. Cases were 383 women with incident invasive breast cancer, and controls were 416 women with other incident, malignant cancers, excluding those potentially associated with selected occupational exposures. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were measured across Montreal in 2005-2006. We developed a land-use regression model to predict concentrations of NO2 across Montreal for 2006, and developed two methods to extrapolate the estimates to 1985 and 1996. We linked these estimates to addresses of residences of subjects at time of interview. We used unconditional logistic regression to adjust for accepted and suspected risk factors and occupational exposures. RESULTS: For each increase of 5 ppb NO2 estimated in 1996, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.71). Although the size of effect varied somewhat across periods, we found an increased risk of approximately 25% for every increase of 5 ppb in exposure. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of an association between the incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer and exposure to ambient concentrations of NO2. Further studies are needed to confirm whether NO2 or other components of traffic-related pollution are indeed associated with increased risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".