Breast cancer risk by occupation and industry in women and men: Results from the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recently established Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS) was used to examine breast cancer risk in women and men by occupation and industry. METHODS: Ontario workers in the ODSS cohort (1983-2016) were followed up for breast cancer diagnosis through the Ontario Cancer Registry. Cox-proportional hazard models were used to calculate age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 17 865 and 492 cases were identified in working women (W) and men (M), respectively. Elevated risks were observed in management (W: HR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.40-1.70; M: HR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.44-5.39), administrative/clerical (W: HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.11-1.21; M: HR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.06-1.99), and teaching (W: HR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.44-1.63; M: HR = 3.00, 95% CI = 1.49-6.03). Other elevated risks were observed in nursing/health, social sciences, and janitor/cleaning services for both genders. CONCLUSIONS: Common occupational associations in both genders warrant investigation into job-related risk factors, such as sedentary behavior, shift work, ionizing radiation, and chemical exposures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".