Lung Cancer and Indoor Air Pollution Arising from Chinese-Style Cooking among Nonsmoking Women Living in Shanghai, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two of the Authors Reply: We appreciate the comments by Thomson and her colleagues regarding our paper. 1 We find it rather ironic that the quality of the data is being questioned because there were few missing data points. Not only were the data fairly complete, but about 90% of eligible subjects participated in the study. The large differences in response between our study and those conducted in western countries, which underlies the question of reliability by Thomson et al, arise mainly from cultural differences between China and the west, including an almost universal compliance to requests to participate in studies, lack of residential and occupational mobility, long-term consistency of dietary habits, and relative constancy in time of occupational and environmental exposures. Although the interview was lengthy (averaging 50 minutes to complete), it was no longer than is usual in case-control studies evaluating environmental exposures. These high rates of response demonstrate that the data are reliable, and may be more accurate than the data from many western studies. It is possible that cooking chilies or onions may irritate the eyes and the throat and that other foods or ingredients may release carcinogens into the air. These types of exposures may contribute to the observed increased relative risks, but several factors suggest that the heated cooking oils may be the main culprit: the variable measuring eye or throat irritation was based on questions that were independent of the food cooked; higher relative risks were found for rapeseed oil than for other oils; and heated cooking oils have been found to be mutagenic in short-term assays. In our study population, the distribution of the number of times subjects’ used stir-frying was skewed, with 92% of subjects stir-frying seven times per week. This high frequency is due to the cultural milieu of Shanghai, in which it is the norm that at least one daily meal is prepared using the stir-frying technique. Thus, it is unlikely that the association between the risk of lung cancer and stir-frying was due to the use of the chosen cutpoints (<7, = 7, >7 times per week). The low frequency of stir-frying more than 7 times per week led to the very wide confidence intervals in the odds ratios, so this particular association needs to be interpreted cautiously. We note, however, that this association has been reported in other studies of Chinese populations. 2–4 Mark S. Goldberg Lijie Zhong
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".