MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208070320 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.14

O-288 Occupational exposures and breast cancer risk in the CECILE study

2021· article· en· W3208070320 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineOdds ratioEnvironmental healthPopulationJob-exposure matrixEpidemiologyCancerLogistic regressionConfidence intervalOccupational medicineOccupational exposureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> 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. <h3>Objectives</h3> To examine associations between selected occupational exposures and breast cancer risk. <h3>Methods</h3> 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. <h3>Results</h3> 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. <h3>Conclusion</h3> 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.319 · 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