Identification of Occupational Cancer Risks in British Columbia, Canada: A Population-Based Case—Control Study of 1,155 Cases of Colon Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cancer has been recognized to have environmental origin, but occupational cancer risk studies have not been fully documented. The objective of this paper was to identify occupations and industries with elevated colon cancer risk based on lifetime occupational histories collected from 15,463 incident cancer cases. METHOD: A group matched case-control design was used. All cases were diagnosed with histologically proven colon cancers, with cancer controls being all other cancer sites, excluding rectum, lung and unknown primary, diagnosed at the same period of time from the British Columbia Cancer Registry. Data analyses were done on all 597 Canadian standard occupation titles and 1,104 standard industry titles using conditional logistic regression for matched data sets and the likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Excess colon cancer risks was observed in a number of occupations and industries, particularly those with low physical activity and those involving exposure to asbestos, wood dusts, engine exhaust and diesel engine emissions, and ammonia. DISCUSSION: The results of our study are in line with those from the literature and further suggest that exposure to wood dusts and to ammonia may carry an increased occupational risk of colon 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 | 0.001 | 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".