MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209103974 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.288

P-361 Occupational exposure to engine exhaust and prostate cancer risk

2021· article· en· W3209103974 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Barul, Marie‐Élise Parent

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerOdds ratioMedicineConfidence intervalDemographyLogistic regressionContext (archaeology)PopulationEnvironmental healthCancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Some engine exhaust components are carcinogenic or have hormone-disrupting properties. <h3>Objective</h3> To investigate the association between lifetime occupational exposure to various engine exhausts (EE) and prostate cancer risk. <h3>Methods</h3> In the context of a case-control study conducted in Montreal, Canada, 1,924 histologically-confirmed prostate cancer cases (436 aggressive) and 1,989 population controls were recruited. Complete occupational history, socio-demographic and lifestyle factors were collected during in-person interviews. Industrial hygienists conducted semi-quantitative evaluations of intensity, frequency and reliability of exposure to leaded and unleaded gasoline EE, any diesel EE, heavy diesel EE, light diesel EE, jet fuel EE, and propane EE in each job held ≥2 years. Odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, ancestry and education, and 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated with unconditional logistic regression, modelling the association between each EE and prostate cancer risk. <h3>Results</h3> Ever exposure to leaded gasoline EE was associated with a slight increase in risk of overall prostate cancer (OR=1.13, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.31), after restricting to probable and definite exposures, and applying a 5-year lag. Although no formal statistical heterogeneity in risks appeared, the association was slightly stronger for non-aggressive cancers than aggressive ones. No dose-response relationships emerged for total duration or cumulative exposure. Men who had ever been exposed to jet fuel EE showed a decreased odds of the tumor (OR=0.34 95%CI 0.19 to 0.61). No association was found with exposure to any other EE. Mutual adjustments for other EE and sensitivity analyses restricting controls to men recently screened for prostate cancer yielded results consistent with the main findings. <h3>Conclusion</h3> We found limited evidence for a deleterious role of occupational exposure to leaded gasoline EE in the development of prostate cancer. This is the first study to examine the distinct role of leaded and unleaded gasoline EE in the etiology of this 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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207