Urinary Lead Exposure and Breast Cancer Risk in a Population-Based Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lead is a toxic nonessential metal with widespread exposure starting in utero. Lead has been reclassified in 2004 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group from a "possible" to a "probable" human carcinogen. Lead may be a facilitative or permissive carcinogen, which means that lead may permit or augment the genotoxic effects of other exposures. METHODS: This population-based study in Wisconsin gathered survey data and home-collected urine specimens from 246 women, ages 20 to 69 years, with incident invasive breast cancer identified from the Wisconsin state registry and 254 age-matched control subjects from population lists from September 2004 to February 2005. We measured urinary lead concentrations by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, adjusted the values by specific gravity, and conducted interviews by telephone to obtain information on known and suspected breast cancer risk factors. RESULTS: Women in the highest quartile of specific gravity-adjusted lead level (>/=1.10 mug/L) had twice the breast cancer risk of those in the lowest quartile (<0.42 mug/L; odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.6) after adjustment for established risk factors. Excluding women who were currently taking nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (n = 52), we did not observe any increased breast cancer risk after adjustment for established risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our population-based case-control study suggests that lead exposure, as determined by specific gravity-adjusted urinary lead concentrations, is not associated with a significant increased risk for breast 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 | 0.002 | 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".