Estimating the burden of lung cancer in Canada attributed to occupational radon exposure using a novel exposure assessment method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Exposure to radon causes lung cancer. The scope and impact of exposure among Canadian workers have not been assessed. Our study estimated occupational radon exposure in Canada and its associated lung cancer burden. Methods Exposed workers were identified among the working population during the risk exposure period (1961–2001) using data from the Canadian Census and Labour Force Survey. Exposure levels were assigned based on 12,865 workplace radon measurements for indoor workers and assumed to be 1800 mg/m 3 for underground workers. Lung cancer risks were calculated using the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VI exposure-age-concentration model. Population attributable fractions were calculated with Levin’s equation and applied to 2011 Canadian lung cancer statistics. Results Approximately 15.5 million Canadian workers were exposed to radon during the risk exposure period. 79% of exposed workers were exposed to radon levels < 50 Bq/m 3 and 4.8% were exposed to levels > 150 Bq/m 3 . We estimated that 0.8% of lung cancers in Canada were attributable to occupational radon exposure, corresponding to approximately 188 incident lung cancers in 2011. Conclusions The lung cancer burden associated with occupational radon exposure in Canada is small, with the greatest burden occurring among those exposed to low levels of radon.
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) | 0.000 | 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".