A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Occupational Exposure to Acids and the Risk of Lung Cancer: Evidence for Specificity of Association
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational exposure to strong inorganic acid mists containing sulfuric acid has been recognized as a carcinogen (Group 1) since 1992. An augmented, secondary data analysis of a population-based case-control study of lung cancer was conducted to assess lung cancer-specific risks using 772 lung cancer cases diagnosed between 1981 and 1985. Individually matched controls--on age, gender, and borough of residence--were identified. Lifetime exposure to 10 acidic agents, including strong inorganic acids and some gases, was assessed from complete lifetime occupational histories in terms of concentration, frequency, and reliability of the various exposure assessments. Smoking-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were determined for overall and histology-categorized lung cancers using conditional logistic regression. No excess risk for overall lung cancer was associated with any of the acids, and effect modification by gender could not be identified. The absence of an acid lung cancer effect reinforces more recent toxicological data that suggest specificity to the larynx.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it