Risk of lung cancer from traditional heating and cooking fuels in Montreal, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
B63 Among the major sources of indoor air pollution are combustion by-products from heating and cooking. There has been increasing concern that the use of polluting heating and cooking sources can contribute to cancer risk. In Canada, most cooking and heating is now, done with electricity or natural gas, but in the past, and still in some areas, coal and wood stoves were used for heating and gas and wood for cooking. In the course of a case-control study of lung cancer carried out in Montreal in 1996-2000, we collected information on subjects9 lifetime exposure to such sources of domestic pollution. The study included both males and females, 1205 cases and 1541 population controls had available for analysis. For male, the uni-variate analysis shows that there were some indications, albeit not statistically significant, that exposure to traditional heating and cooking sources carried some excess risk of lung cancer; but when adjusted with other covariates there was no indication of excess risks. For women, risks adjusted for smoking and other covariates were almost doubled for those exposed to traditional heating and cooking fuels. Given the paucity of evidence from developed countries, our results suggest that there might be an increased risk of lung cancer among women exposed to traditional heating and cooking fuels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".