Case-control study of radon and lung cancer in New Jersey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radon is known to cause lung cancer in humans; however, there remain uncertainties about the effects associated with residential exposures. This case-control study of residential radon and lung cancer was conducted in five counties in New Jersey and involved 561 cases and 740 controls. A year long alpha-track detector measurement of radon was completed for approximately 93% of all residences lived in at the time of interview (a total of 2,063). While the odds ratios (ORs) for whole data were suggestive of an increased risk for exposures >75 Bq m(-3), these associations were not statistically significant. The adjusted excess OR (EOR) per 100 Bq m(-3) was -0.13 (95% CI: -0.30 to 0.44) for males, 0.29 (95% CI: -0.12 to 1.70) for females and 0.05 (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.56) for all subjects combined. An analysis of radon effects by histological type of lung cancer showed that the OR was strongest for small/oat cell carcinomas in both males and females. There was no statistical heterogeneity of radon effects by demographic factors (age at disease occurrence, education level and type of respondent). Analysis by categories of smoking status, frequency or duration did not modify the risk estimates of radon on lung cancer. The findings of this study are consistent with an earlier population-based study of radon and lung cancer among New Jersey women, and with the North American pooling of case control radon seven studies, including the previous New Jersey study. Several uncertainties regarding radon measurements and assumptions of exposure history may have resulted in underestimation of a true exposure-response relationship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".