Estimating the Proportion of Cases of Lung Cancer Legally Attributable to Smoking: A Novel Approach for Class Actions Against the Tobacco Industry
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
OBJECTIVES: The plaintiffs' lawyers for a class action suit, which was launched in Quebec on behalf of all patients with lung cancer whose disease was caused by cigarette smoking, asked us to estimate what proportion of lung cancer cases in Quebec, if they hypothetically could be individually evaluated, would satisfy the criterion that it is "more likely than not" that smoking caused the disease. METHODS: The novel methodology we developed is based on the dose-response relationship between smoking and lung cancer, for which we use the pack-years as a measure of smoking, and the distribution of pack-years of smoking among cases. RESULTS: We estimated that the amount of smoking required to satisfy the "more likely than not" criterion is between 3 and 11 pack-years. More than 90% of the Quebec cases satisfied even the most conservative of these thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: More than 90% of cases of lung cancer in Quebec are legally attributable to smoking. The methodology enhances the ability to conduct class action suits against the tobacco industry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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