O-288 Occupational exposures and breast cancer risk in the CECILE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The etiology of breast cancer is only partially understood. An increasing body of epidemiological evidence indicates that environmental and occupational factors may affect breast cancer risk, yet no established risk factors have been identified. Although recent studies have shown increased risks associated with specific workplace exposures, the evidence remains largely inconclusive for most occupational agents. Objectives To examine associations between selected occupational exposures and breast cancer risk. Methods In a population-based case-control study conducted in France between 2005 and 2008, detailed information on lifetime occupational history was collected for 1,206 cases and 1,294 population controls. An industrial hygienist coded occupations and industries for each job held by a participant. To identify occupational exposures, job codes were linked to the Canadian job-exposure matrix. Twenty-seven agents with relatively high prevalence were selected. Three exposure metrics of ever exposure, duration of exposure, and cumulative exposure to selected agents were analyzed. The reference group were participants having never been exposed to the specific agent. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for associations with breast cancer were estimated using logistic regression models, adjusting for well-established breast cancer risk factors. Results Increased risks were suggested for high cumulative exposure to calcium carbonate, polyester fibres, fabric dust, cotton dust, aliphatic aldehydes, mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and synthetic adhesives, with ORs ranging from 1.45 to 1.66. Inverse associations were observed for all exposure metrics for ultraviolet radiation and grain dust, with ORs ranging from 0.41 to 0.68. Conclusion These findings suggest that some occupational exposures may increase breast cancer risk. The decreased ORs associated with ultraviolet radiation and grain dust suggest that certain exposures that are typical of agricultural workers might be protective but should be interpreted with care. More research contributing to the knowledge base on occupational factors in relation to breast cancer is required.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".