MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019837978 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201911-2101oc

Diesel Engine Exhaust Exposure, Smoking, and Lung Cancer Subtype Risks. A Pooled Exposure–Response Analysis of 14 Case–Control Studies

2020· article· en· W3019837978 on OpenAlexaff
Calvin Ge, Susan Peters, Ann Olsson, Lützen Portengen, Joachim Schüz, Josué Almansa, Wolfgang Ahrens, Vladimír Bencko, Simone Benhamou, Paolo Boffetta, Bas Bueno‐de‐Mesquita, Neil E. Caporaso, Dario Consonni, Paul A. Demers, Eleonóra Fabiánová, Guillermo Fernández‐Tardón, John K. Field, Francesco Forastiere, Lenka Foretová, Pascal Guénel, Per Gustavsson, Vladimí­r Janout, Karl‐Heinz Jöckel, Stefan Karrasch, Maria Teresa Landi, Jolanta Lissowska, Danièle Luce, Dana Mateș, Franco Merletti, Dario Mirabelli, Tamás Pándics, Marie‐Elise Parent, Nils Plato, Hermann Pohlabeln, Lorenzo Richiardi, Jack Siemiatycki, Beata Świątkowska, Adonina Tardón, Heinz‐Erich Wichmann, David Zaridze, Kurt Straíf, Hans Kromhout, Roel Vermeulen

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du QuébecPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoOccupational Cancer Research CentreCancer Care Ontario
FundersDeutsche Gesetzliche UnfallversicherungWorld Health Organization
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalCancerCase-control studyDiesel exhaustInternal medicineLogistic regressionOncologyDiesel fuelWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Although the carcinogenicity of diesel engine exhaust has been demonstrated in multiple studies, little is known regarding exposure–response relationships associated with different exposure subgroups and different lung cancer subtypes. Objectives We expanded on a previous pooled case–control analysis on diesel engine exhaust and lung cancer by including three additional studies and quantitative exposure assessment to evaluate lung cancer and subtype risks associated with occupational exposure to diesel exhaust characterized by elemental carbon (EC) concentrations. Methods We used a quantitative EC job-exposure matrix for exposure assessment. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to calculate lung cancer odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with various metrics of EC exposure. Lung cancer excess lifetime risks (ELR) were calculated using life tables accounting for all-cause mortality. Additional stratified analyses by smoking history and lung cancer subtypes were performed in men. Measurements and Main Results Our study included 16,901 lung cancer cases and 20,965 control subjects. In men, exposure response between EC and lung cancer was observed: odds ratios ranged from 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00–1.18) to 1.41 (95% CI, 1.30–1.52) for the lowest and highest cumulative exposure groups, respectively. EC-exposed men had elevated risks in all lung cancer subtypes investigated; associations were strongest for squamous and small cell carcinomas and weaker for adenocarcinoma. EC lung cancer exposure response was observed in men regardless of smoking history, including in never-smokers. ELR associated with 45 years of EC exposure at 50, 20, and 1 μg/m3 were 3.0%, 0.99%, and 0.04%, respectively, for both sexes combined. Conclusions We observed a consistent exposure–response relationship between EC exposure and lung cancer in men. Reduction of workplace EC levels to background environmental levels will further reduce lung cancer ELR in exposed workers.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.013
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations79
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207