Exposure to crystalline silica in Canadian workplaces and the risk of kidney cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The causes of kidney cancer are not well understood though occupational exposures are thought to play a role. Crystalline silica is a known human carcinogen, and despite previous links with kidney disease, there have been few studies investigating its association with kidney cancer. We addressed this research gap using a population-based case-control study of Canadian men. METHODS: Questionnaire data were obtained from individuals with histologically confirmed kidney cancer, and population-based controls recruited from eight Canadian provinces (1994-1997). An industrial hygienist characterised participants' lifetime occupational exposure, and their confidence in the assessment (possibly, probably or definitely exposed) to silica on three dimensions (intensity, frequency and duration), and cumulative exposure was estimated. Logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Nearly half of the 689 kidney cancer cases (49%) and 2369 controls (44%) had ever been occupationally exposed to crystalline silica. In a fully adjusted model, workers ever-exposed to silica had a slightly increased risk of kidney cancer relative to those who were unexposed (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.32). Odds were modestly (and generally not statistically significantly) increased for models with duration of exposure and cumulative exposure, though exposure-response relationships were not evident. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not provide evidence that occupational exposure to crystalline silica increases risk of kidney cancer in men.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".