MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Occupational exposures and lung cancer risk - an analysis of the CARTaGENE study

2020· article· en· W3173129636 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saeedeh Moayedi-Nia, Romain Pasquet, Jérôme Lavoué, Jack Siemiatycki, Anita Koushik, Vikki Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineCohortConfidence intervalCohort studyOdds ratioLogistic regressionCancerEnvironmental healthJob-exposure matrixInternal medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the possible associations between selected occupational agents and lung cancer risk. Methods: A case-cohort design was nested within the CARTaGENE study. Cases included all participants with an incident diagnosis of lung cancer occurring during the follow-up from 2009 to 2015 (N=178). For comparison, a sub-cohort of 1033 individuals was established based on a stratified sample of the cohort at baseline. Information on participants’ longest-held job was collected at baseline and coded by an occupational hygienist according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1968 (ISCO-68). The job codes were then linked to the Canadian Job Exposure Matrix (CANJEM) to determine the probability of exposure to a list of 258 agents. This analysis was restricted to the 28 most prevalent agents with at least 5 exposed cases. Separate multivariable logistic regression models with robust variance estimators were used to estimate odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the associations between each agent and lung cancer risk while controlling for established lung cancer risk factors, notably smoking. Results: Increased lung cancer risk was found among those exposed to ashes (OR=3.8; 95% CI: 1.5-9.5), hydrogen chloride (OR=4.4; 95% CI: 1.2-16.0), formaldehyde (OR=2.3; 95% CI: 1.3-4.2), cooking fumes (OR=2.4; 95% CI: 1.1-5.3), paints and varnishes used on surfaces other than metal and wood (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 1.0-9.8), alkanes (OR=2.6; 95% CI: 1.2-5.5), aliphatic aldehydes (OR= 2.9; 95% CI: 1.3-4.3), and cleaning agents (OR=1.6; 95% CI: 1.0-2.5). A reduced lung cancer risk was observed among participants exposed to gasoline engine emissions (OR=0.5; 95% CI: 0.2-1.0) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from petroleum (OR=0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.9). Conclusion: Our preliminary findings provide support for the role of several occupational agents, for which we have limited knowledge, in contributing to lung cancer risk.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISEE Conference AbstractsSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207