Breast Cancer Among Female Flight Attendants and the Role of the Occupational Exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate occupational exposures and their role in breast cancer (BC) risk among female flight attendants (FFAs). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE and included all observational studies reporting on the outcome BC incidence among FFAs. The exposures of interest were cosmic radiation and circadian rhythm disruption. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which four were included in the meta-analysis for BC incidence (pooled standardized incidence ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 1.54). Three studies suggested a possible association between BC and cosmic radiation, whereas none found an association with circadian rhythm disruption. CONCLUSION: Neither exposure to cosmic radiation nor circadian rhythm disruption seems to explain the elevated risk of BC among flight attendants. Further studies reporting individual information on occupational exposures are needed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".