Surveillance of mesothelioma and workers' compensation in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of workers' compensation for mesothelioma cases in the Canadian province of British Columbia, examine trends in mesothelioma cases and compensation over time, and identify factors associated with compensation status for mesothelioma cases. METHODS: Mesothelioma cases in the provincial cancer registry were linked at the individual level with accepted claims for mesothelioma in the provincial workers' compensation system for the period 1970-2005. RESULTS: 391 of the 485 workers' compensated claims were linked (81% match rate) with a record in the cancer registry for an overall mesothelioma compensation rate of 33% over the study period and a high of 49% in the last 5 years. Compensation rates were lower for women, older (retired) as well as younger workers, and sites other than the pleura. CONCLUSIONS: Although the workers' compensation rate for mesothelioma increased over time, the rate was much lower than anticipated for cases believed to be work-related cancers. Several key factors may significantly influence awareness by clinicians and workers of the work-relatedness of mesothelioma and of workers' compensation benefits. Regulatory agencies need to develop policies or effective notification systems to ensure that all newly diagnosed mesothelioma cases seek compensation benefits.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".