Abstract 1875: Lung cancer risk among hairdressers in SYNERGY – pooled analysis from case-control studies in Europe and Canada with detailed smoking data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract “Occupational exposure as a hairdresser or barber” was classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in volume 99 (2010). Small increases in lung cancer risk (20-40%) are found in most cohort studies but without adequate adjustment for smoking. Studies in Scandinavia and the USA show a higher prevalence of smokers among hairdressers than in the general population. The SYNERGY project has pooled information on lifetime work histories (ISCO-68) and tobacco smoking from 13479 cases and 16350 controls, including 20% women, from 11 case-control studies in 12 European countries and Canada. The original studies were conducted between 1985 and 2005. Odds ratios (OR) for lung cancer and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by unconditional logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, study, cigarette pack-years and time since quitting smoking. Less than 1% of the study population had ever worked as hairdresser or barber (0.89% of cases and 0.74% of controls). Hairdressers and barbers experienced a slight increase in lung cancer risk OR 1.16 (95%CI 0.90-1.49), which disappeared after adjusting for smoking OR 0.97 (95%CI 0.73-1.30). Results by duration of employment showed highest risks in hairdressers with short employment. Results were similar by gender, histology of lung cancer, and for women hairdressers. We observed a slight and non-significant increase in risk for male barbers, particularly in barbers with the longest employment and after adjustment for smoking. We could not detect an association between having worked as hairdresser or barber and increased lung cancer risk overall after adjusting for smoking. However, among male barbers we observed an increasing risk with increasing duration, although non-significant, after adjusting for tobacco smoking. Final results will include several more studies, and thereby increase the precision of our effect estimates. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1875. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-1875
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".