MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996446805 · doi:10.1136/oem-2019-epi.143

O6B.2 Cancer risk by ore type in a mixed miners cohort

2019· article· en· W2996446805 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul A. Demers, Colin Berriault, Avinash Ramkissoon, Minh Tri Phan, Nancy Lightfoot, Xiaoke Zeng, Victoria H Arrandale

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational and Environmental Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerCohortEnvironmental healthCohort studyPoisson regressionCancerPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives Mining may involve exposure to many carcinogens, including respirable crystalline silica (RSC), diesel engine exhaust (DEE), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), radon (Rn), and arsenic (As), which vary by ore being mined. The province of Ontario, Canada has a diverse mining sector with associated exposures including gold (RSC/DEE/As/Cr), uranium (RSC/DEE/Rn), and nickel-copper (DEE/Ni), and other ores (RSC/DEE). The study aim was to examine the risk of cancer by ore type in a mixed mining cohort. Methods From 1928–1987 workers in the Ontario minerals industry were required to undergo an annual physical examination and chest x-ray, as well as record their mining work history in order to receive certification. Data from these exams was used to create the Mining Master File (MMF) cohort. Cancers were identified through linkage of the MMF with the Ontario Cancer Registry (1964–2017). Cancer risk among miners was compared to provincial rates using Standardized Incidence Ratios (SIR); internal analyses were conducted using Poisson regression. Results Individuals who died or were lost before 1964, had missing or invalid data, or employment of less than two weeks were excluded. Too few women (n=161) were available for analysis. In total, 61 397 men were included in the analysis. Gold miners had excesses of lung (SIR=1.30, 95%CI=1.23–1.38) and nasopharyngeal cancer (SIR=2.34, 95%CI=1.39–3.70). Uranium miners had excesses of lung (SIR=1.57, 95%CI=1.45–1.70), bladder (SIR=1.20, 95%CI=1.02–1.40), and bone (SIR=2.45, 95%CI=1.30–4.19) cancers. Nickel-copper miners had excesses of lung (SIR=1.13, 95%CI=1.08–1.19), bone (SIR=2.02, 95%CI=1.32–2.96), and sinonasal cancer (SIR=1.73, 95%CI=1.12–2.56). Conclusions Increased risks for specific cancers were observed among people who mined many different ore types. Most of the associations were as expected, but several (e.g., bone cancers) will undergo further investigation. Future analyses will examine the impact of combined exposures among miners of multiple ore types.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207