Occupational female breast and reproductive cancer mortality in British Columbia, Canada, 1950-94
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been postulated that recent increases in female breast and reproductive cancers may be, in part, attributable to occupational exposures. AIM: We aimed to identify occupational associations with female breast and reproductive cancer mortality among women living in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: Case-control methods were used to calculate mortality odds ratios for occupation and cause of death information obtained from the provincial death registry. Cases included women 20 years of age or older who died from breast or reproductive cancer between 1950 and 1994 and resident in BC, Canada. Controls were randomly selected from non-cancer deaths, matched according to age at death and year of death. In a subsequent, stratified analysis, we also identified changes over time to breast and reproductive cancer mortality among each worker group. RESULTS: There was excess mortality from breast and ovarian cancer among teachers, nurses, secretaries, librarians, retail sales clerks and religious workers. An elevated risk of breast cancer mortality was also found among professionals employed as owners, managers and government officials, financial saleswomen, scientists, physicians, medical and dental technicians and accountants. Secretaries, telephone operators and musicians were at increased risk of death from endometrial cancer. Cervical cancer mortality was not significantly increased for any occupational classification. CONCLUSIONS: Our study was aimed primarily at hypothesis generation. More systematic reviews, including cancer registry studies, will prove useful for confirming the relationships we have observed, including a possible increase in the risk of breast and ovarian cancer mortality among women employed in professional occupations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".