MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W41201907

Laryngeal Cancer and Asbestos Exposure: What Singing Teachers Should Know

2013· article· en· W41201907 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

VenueJournal of Singing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingingCausationEvent (particle physics)MedicinePsychologyMedical educationLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SINGING TEACHERS COMMONLY are the primary health care resource for voice students. In addition to questions about technique, students often turn to teachers for guidance regarding issues of vocal health. While singing teachers should be very cautious about providing specific guidance without the input of a physician, the greater the teacher's knowledge base, the more likely he/she is to be able to counsel students accurately. Vocal health problems run the gamut from common colds to cancer, and many students have particular concerns about potential environmental hazards that may affect vocal health. One such hazard is asbestos exposure, which is associated clearly with serious lung disease. However, the association with laryngeal cancer is less clear. This article is derived from a prior publication (with permission) and is provided to bring singing teachers up-to-date on what we know about this important problem.1Medicine is replete with assumptions and myths based on faulty reasoning. It is important for all of us to be aware of this problem and diligent about assessing evidence to draw the best possible conclusions. One of the most frequent errors results from post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. This classic error in logic assumes that because Event B happens after Event A, Event B is caused by Event A. Proof of causation requires considerably more rigorous evidence. The suggestion that asbestos exposure can cause laryngeal cancer appears to be an example of this flaw in logic.It was estimated in 2008 that in the United States, laryngeal carcinoma would affect 12,250 adults, of whom 3,670 would die. The mean age of diagnosis of laryngeal carcinoma is 65 years, and the mean age of death caused by this tumor is 69 years.2 Known risk factors for laryngeal carcinoma include cigarette smoking and ethanol use. These factors have been shown to have a synergistic effect in the development of carcinoma, and singers and professional voice users should be educated early in their careers to not smoke and to moderate alcohol consumption.In the late 1970s, medical evidence determined a connection between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, a very aggressive lung cancer. The manufacturing of building materials containing asbestos was stopped. In 1989, the United States EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) banned all new uses of asbestos; uses developed before 1989, however, were still allowed. In 2005, Senators Harry Reid and Bill Frist established a National Asbestos Awareness Day to raise public awareness of the dangers of asbestos exposure.3Asbestos is the name of a group of six naturally occurring minerals which contain long thin fibers that can be easily separated. These fibers are resistant to heat, fire, and chemicals, and they do not conduct electricity. Because asbestos is flame resistant and has excellent insulation properties, it was used extensively in building materials such as ceiling tiles, ductwork for heating and cooling systems, vinyl floor coverings, and others. Asbestos has also been used in the automobile industry, in particular in brake pads and linings and clutches. However, asbestos is usually encountered through occupational exposure including construction work, shipyards, mining, oil refineries, processing plants, chemical and power plants. Firefighters and auto mechanics may also have occupational exposure to asbestos.A possible association between asbestos exposure and laryngeal carcinoma has been evaluated throughout the years. However, there are numerous conflicting reports, and a link between asbestos and laryngeal cancer has not been proven.In 1975, Stell and McGill were the first authors to propose a link between asbestos exposure and laryngeal carcinoma.4 One hundred nineteen patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx were identified. Compared to age-matched controls, a greater proportion of patients had significant asbestos exposure (27.7 vs. 2.5%; p

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · 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