MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887271015 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxy059

Occupational Exposure to Diesel and Gasoline Engine Exhausts and the Risk of Kidney Cancer in Canadian Men

2018· article· en· W2887271015 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cheryl Peters, Marie‐Élise Parent, Shelley A. Harris, Laura Bogaert, Lidija Latifovic, Linda Kachuri, Paul J. Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCarleton UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsEnvironmental healthKidney cancerMedicineOdds ratioDiesel exhaustConfidence intervalCancerOccupational medicineLung cancerDiesel enginePopulationDiesel fuelDemographyOccupational exposureInternal medicineWaste managementEngineeringAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Kidney cancer is the fifth most common incident cancer in Canadian men. Diesel and gasoline exhausts are common workplace exposures that have been examined as risk factors for non-lung cancer sites, including the kidney, but limitations in exposure assessment methods have contributed to inconsistent findings. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between occupational gasoline and diesel engine exhausts and the risk of kidney cancer in men. Methods: The National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System (NECSS) is a Canadian population-based case-control study conducted in 1994-1997. Incident kidney cancer cases were identified using provincial registries, while the control series was identified through random-digit dialing, or provincial administrative databases. Self-reported questionnaires were used to obtain information on lifetime occupational history and cancer risk factors. Two hygienists, blinded to case status, coded occupational histories for diesel and gasoline exhaust exposures using concentration, frequency, duration, and reliability. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) separately by exhaust type. The separate and combined impacts of both engine exhausts were also examined. ORs were adjusted for age, province, body mass index, occupational secondhand smoke exposure, and education. Results: Of the kidney cancer cases (n = 712), 372 (52%) had exposure to both exhausts at some point, and 984 (40%) of the controls (n = 2457) were ever exposed. Workers who had ever been exposed to engine exhausts were more likely to have kidney cancer than those who were never exposed (OR diesel = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.99-1.53; OR gasoline = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.23-1.86). Exposure to gasoline exhaust was consistently associated with kidney cancer in a dose-response manner (P value for trends in highest attained and cumulative exposure both <0.0001). Those men with high cumulative exposure to both gasoline and diesel exhaust had a 76% increased odds of kidney cancer (95% CI = 1.27-2.43). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that occupational gasoline, and to a lesser extent, diesel exhaust exposure may increase the risk of kidney cancer.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207