Occupational risk factors for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational risk factors for prostate cancer have been investigated with inconsistent findings. METHODS: This was a population-based case-control study of men in Northeastern Ontario, Canada. Cases (n = 760) were from the Ontario Cancer Registry, 50 to 84 years old, and diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1995 and 1998. Age-frequency matched controls (n = 1,632) were obtained from telephone listings. A questionnaire yielded information on occupational history and self-reported exposures to a list of occupational hazards. Exposures to these hazards were assessed by an occupational hygienist. RESULTS: An odds ratio estimate (OR) of 1.21 (95 percent confidence interval (% CI) 1.01, 1.46) was found for employment in trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations, possibly related to exposure to whole-body vibration (OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.07, 1.78). For the highest quartile of lifetime cumulative workplace physical activity an OR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.02, 1.74) was found. No statistically significant associations were found for any other occupational category or exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not provide strong evidence for significant occupational risk factors for prostate cancer. However, whole-body vibration exposures, as well as physical activity, may be worth pursuing in future occupational studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".