Application of two job indices for general occupational demands in a pooled analysis of case–control studies on lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated general job demands as a risk factor for lung cancer as well as their role in the association between occupational prestige and lung cancer. METHODS: In 13 case-control studies on lung cancer, as part of the international SYNERGY project, we applied indices for physical (PHI) and psychosocial (PSI) job demands - each with four categories (high to low). We estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for lung cancer by unconditional logistic regression, separately for men and women and adjusted for study centre, age, smoking behavior, and former employment in occupations with potential exposure to carcinogens. Further, we investigated, whether higher risks among men with low occupational prestige (Treiman's Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale) were affected by adjustment for the job indices. RESULTS: In 30 355 men and 7371 women, we found increased risks (OR) for lung cancer with high relative to low job demands in both men [PHI 1.74 (95% CI 1.56-1.93), PSI 1.33 (95% CI 1.17-1.51)] and women [PHI 1.62 (95% CI 1.24-2.11), PSI 1.31 (95% CI 1.09-1.56)]. OR for lung cancer among men with low occupational prestige were slightly reduced when adjusting for PHI [low versus high prestige OR from 1.44 (95% CI 1.32-1.58) to 1.30 (95% CI 1.17-1.45)], but not PSI. CONCLUSIONS: Higher physical job demands were associated with increased risks of lung cancer, while associations for higher psychosocial demands were less strong. In contrast to physical demands, psychosocial demands did not contribute to clarify the association of occupational prestige and lung cancer.
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) | 0.001 | 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".