Prevalence of occupational exposure to asbestos and crystalline silica according to phenotypes of lung cancer from the CaProMat study: A case‐only study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare the prevalence of occupational exposure to asbestos and crystalline silica according to histological types of lung cancer and age at diagnosis. METHODS: CaProMat study is a pooled case-only study conducted between 1996 and 2011. The current study consisted of 6521 lung cancer cases. Occupational exposure to asbestos and crystalline silica was assessed by two Job-Exposure Matrices. A weighted prevalence of exposure was derived and compared according to histological types and age at diagnosis. RESULTS: There was no difference of weighted prevalence of exposure to asbestos and crystalline silica according to histological types of lung cancer. There was a statistically significant difference of weighted prevalence of exposure to asbestos and crystalline silica according to age at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited clinical importance of the difference, neither the histological type, nor the age at diagnosis can be used as an indicator for the occupational exposure to asbestos or crystalline silica.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".