Risk of Lung Cancer from Residential Heating and Cooking Fuels in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the major sources of indoor air pollution are combustion by-products from heating and cooking. Concern is increasing that use of polluting heating and cooking sources can increase cancer risk. In Canada, most cooking and heating currently relies on electricity or natural gas, but, in the past, and still in some areas, coal and wood stoves were used for heating and gas and wood for cooking. In the course of a case-control study of lung cancer carried out in Montreal in 1996-2001, the authors collected information on subjects' lifetime exposure to such sources of domestic pollution by means of a personal interview with the subject or a next-of-kin proxy. Questionnaires were completed for 739 male cases, 925 male controls, 466 female cases, and 616 female controls. Odds ratios were computed in relation to a few indices of exposure to traditional heating and cooking sources, adjusting for a number of covariates, including smoking. Among men, there was no indication of excess risks. Among women, the odds ratio for those exposed to both traditional heating and cooking sources was 2.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.5, 3.6; n = 253). The findings for women suggest the need for research dedicated to exploring this association, with particular emphasis on improved exposure assessment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".