Anthophyllite Asbestos: The Role of Fiber Width in Mesothelioma Induction Part 2: Further Epidemiological Studies of Occupational, Domestic and Environmental Exposure to Finnish Anthophyllite Asbestos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although people in all sectors of the Finnish anthophyllite industry, including their families, have been heavily exposed to anthophyllite there is no evidence for even a single proven case of attributable mesothelioma. A few cases have been claimed but the evidence either, that they were mesotheliomas or that amphibole exposure was solely to anthophyllite is, in every case examined, insufficient. Even among the population who lived in Karelia in Central Finland who were exposed domestically or enviromentally to anthophyllite released during agricultural and various domestic activities and during transport from the mines, Finnish epidemiology found no risk of mesothelioma. There is also an absence of mesotheliomas reported in the earlier Finnish literature. This anomaly compared to the effects of exposure to other amphiboles is strong support for the role of fiber width in mesothelioma production. Anthophyllite, though, is not without clinical effect. As screening techniques improved it was discovered that of every person over the age of 65 years, one third living in Karelia had bilateral pleural plaques. The area was henceforth called the Endemic Pleural Plaque (EPP) zone. Radiographic analysis of the residents living in the district of Kuusjarvi led to suggestions that the cases resulted from asbestos blown from the Paakila facility via fiber drift as far away as 30 km. Later studies showed that ‘fiber drift’ was very unlikely to be a factor in the radiological findings thus observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".