Bladder cancer incidence and exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons among asphalt pavers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between exposures to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that arises during asphalt paving, and risk of bladder cancer. METHODS: 7298 men included in the historical cohort were first employed between 1913 and 1999 in companies applying asphalt in Denmark, Norway, Finland and Israel. The minimal duration of employment for inclusion in the cohort was two seasons of work. Occupational histories were extracted from personnel files. A follow-up for cancer incidence was conducted through national cancer registries. The authors estimated exposures to benzo(a)pyrene as a marker for 4-6 ring PAH. Exposures were reconstructed by using information about changes in asphalt paving technology in each company over time, the modelled relation between production characteristics and exposure levels, and job histories. Relative risks and associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: 48 bladder cancers among asphalt paving workers were detected; of these, 39 cases were exposed at least 15 years before the diagnosis. Cumulative exposure to PAH was not associated with the incidence of bladder cancer. The association with average exposure became stronger when 15-year lag was considered, revealing a twofold increase in relative bladder cancer risk in the two higher exposure categories. There was an indication of exposure-response association with lagged averaged exposure. Risk estimates were adjusted for age, country, duration of employment and calendar period, did not show heterogeneity among countries and did not materially change when re-estimated after excluding non-primary cancers from follow-up. Previously conducted sensitivity analysis indicates that confounding by cigarette smoking is an unlikely explanation for the observed exposure-response trends. CONCLUSIONS: The authors were unable to control for all possible sources of confounding and bias. The results do not allow conclusion on the presence or absence of a causal link between exposures to PAH and risk of bladder cancer among asphalt workers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".