Exposure to Diesel Motor Exhaust and Lung Cancer Risk in a Pooled Analysis from Case-Control Studies in Europe and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Diesel motor exhaust is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as probably carcinogenic to humans. The epidemiologic evidence is evaluated as limited because most studies lack adequate control for potential confounders and only a few studies have reported on exposure-response relationships. OBJECTIVES: Investigate lung cancer risk associated with occupational exposure to diesel motor exhaust, while controlling for potential confounders. METHODS: The SYNERGY project pooled information on lifetime work histories and tobacco smoking from 13,304 cases and 16,282 controls from 11 case-control studies conducted in Europe and Canada. A general population job exposure matrix based on ISCO-68 occupational codes, assigning no, low, or high exposure to diesel motor exhaust, was applied to determine level of exposure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Odds ratios of lung cancer and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by unconditional logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, study, ever-employment in an occupation with established lung cancer risk, cigarette pack-years, and time-since-quitting smoking. Cumulative diesel exposure was associated with an increased lung cancer risk highest quartile versus unexposed (odds ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.43), and a significant exposure-response relationship (P value < 0.01). Corresponding effect estimates were similar in workers never employed in occupations with established lung cancer risk, and in women and never-smokers, although not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a consistent association between occupational exposure to diesel motor exhaust and increased risk of lung cancer. This association is unlikely explained by bias or confounding, which we addressed by adjusted models and subgroup analyses.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".