MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990936632 · doi:10.1289/isee.2015.2015-2470

Silica And Asbestos Exposure At Work And Risk Of Bladder Cancer In Canadian Men: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

2015· article· en· W2990936632 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lidija Latifovic, Paul J. Villeneuve, Marie‐Élise Parent, Kenneth C. Johnson, Shelley A. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaArmand Frappier MuseumCarleton UniversityCancer Care Ontario
FundersHealth CanadaWorkplace Safety and Insurance BoardFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsAsbestosBladder cancerMedicineOdds ratioJob-exposure matrixLung cancerConfidence intervalPopulationEnvironmental healthExposure assessmentCase-control studyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Silica and asbestos are prevalent occupational exposures worldwide and are recognized lung carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Clearance of inhaled silica particles and asbestos fibers from the lungs may lead to translocation to sites such as the bladder where they may also initiate carcinogenesis. As few studies have evaluated associations between these exposures and bladder cancer, we sought to address this research gap using data from a Canadian population-based case-control study. Methods: This study included 658 cases and 1360 age-frequency matched controls recruited by the National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System from seven provinces between 1994 and 1997. Concentration, frequency and a measure of the reliability of both silica and asbestos exposure was assigned to each job, based on lifetime occupational histories, using a combination of job-exposure matrices and expert review. Exposures were modelled as ever-never, highest attained concentration, duration, frequency and cumulative exposure. Odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were determined from logistic regression adjusted for age, province, proxy, pack-years and occupational exposures. Results: Relative to unexposed, increased risk of bladder cancer was observed among men with (i) 27 or more years of exposure to low concentrations of silica (OR: 1.38 95% CI: 1.00 – 1.91) and (ii) those in the upper tertile of cumulative silica exposure (1.45, 1.06 – 1.98). For asbestos the results were less consistent with an exposure-response relationship. However, when compared to those with no occupational exposure, increased risks of bladder cancer were observed among those exposed for 5-30% of work time (1.45, 1.06-1.98), < 10 years of exposure at low concentrations (1.75, 1.10-2.77) and the lower tertile of cumulative exposure (1.64, 1.04 – 2.59). Conclusions: Occupational exposure to silica and asbestos may increase the risk of bladder 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISEE Conference AbstractsSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207