Occupational Heat Exposure and Breast Cancer Risk in the MCC-Spain Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanisms linking occupational heat exposure with chronic diseases have been proposed. However, evidence on occupational heat exposure and cancer risk is limited. METHODS: ≥ 25% for at least 1 year) and work time with heat stress (wet bulb globe temperature ISO 7243) for each occupation. We used three exposure indices: ever versus never exposed, lifetime cumulative exposure, and duration of exposure (years). We estimated ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI), applying a lag period of 5 years and adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: = 0.01 and 0.03, respectively). Stronger associations were found for hormone receptor-positive disease (OR ever exposure = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.67). We found no confounding effects from multiple other common occupational exposures; however, results attenuated with adjustment for occupational detergent exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides some evidence of an association between occupational heat exposure and female breast cancer risk. IMPACT: Our results contribute substantially to the scientific literature. Further investigations are needed considering multiple occupational exposures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".