MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2511480050 · doi:10.1136/oemed-2016-103951.510

P193 Occupation as a predictor of prostate cancer screening behaviour

2016· article· en· W2511480050 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheryl Peters, Paul Villeneuve, Sabrina Ladak, Marie‐Élise Parent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexProstate cancer screeningMarital statusProstate cancerLogistic regressionDemographyFamily historyOdds ratioGerontologyPopulationCancerOddsGynecologyProstate-specific antigenInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy in Canadian men. Frequently, it has minimal health impacts and can go undetected for years. Therefore the detection of PCa is impacted by screening practices that are often related to lifestyle and occupational factors, making it difficult to evaluate their etiologic role. Therefore, we examined potential occupational differences in the likelihood to undergo PCa screening. Methods Data were from the Prostate Cancer & Environment Study case-control study. Detailed demographic, lifestyle, screening and occupational information was available for 1,994 population-based controls from Montreal, Canada (we excluded cases since all had been screened). We used the longest job held, categorised into 16 groups. Using logistic regression, we modelled the odds of having ever been screened for PCa by job category. We also explored these associations for having a family history of PCa, being a regular drinker, being a regular smoker, marital status, ancestry, education, income, physical activity at work and leisure, age, and body mass index. Results A total of 1933 controls with complete data were included; 1746 (90%) had ever been screened and 187 (10%) had not. As expected, screening was associated with family history of PCa (OR 2.6; 95% CI: 1.2–5.6), being married (OR 2.0; CI: 1.4–2.8), being older (p < 0.0001), and ancestry (OR for Asian men compared to European: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2–0.9). Income and education were not significantly associated with screening in the adjusted model. However, compared to men working in management, those working in clerical jobs, primary industries, fabrication, construction and transportation were less likely to have been screened. Conclusion We found considerable variation in screening behaviours for PCa across different jobs. Future studies assessing the role of occupation in PCa risk should take screening into consideration when investigating occupational exposures as etiologic factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→