Environment as a Breast Cancer-Causing Factors in Urban Women in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental influence is one of the important factors in breast cancer incidence because residential and work environments may be potential for breast cancer outcomes. This study aimed to determine residential and workplace environments with the occurrence of women breast cancer in urban areas in Indonesia. This study used data from Non-Communicable Disease (NCD Research) in 2016 which covered 34 provinces in Indonesia. There were 38,790 people to measure the occurrence of breast cancer in women aged 25–64 years. The sample was women who were willing to be interviewed and to conduct clinical breast examinations (Sadanis). The analysis was aimed at finding out the correlation between exposure, residential environment, and workplaces with the occurrence of breast tumor/cancer. The results showed that the risk of breast cancer in women who worked in risky workplaces from the normal state was 1.96 times higher than women who worked in non-risky workplaces (OR=1.96; 95% CI= 1.41 to 2.7; p<0.001). Suspected of tumor/cancer in the residential areas are inversely proportional to those not living close to the mining location (OR=0.86; 95% CI= 0.77 to 0.97; p<0.001). These findings suggest the important role of the environment in breast cancer incidence. Therefore, it is recommended to apply a healthy lifestyle, both physically and spiritually, and provide regular health screening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".