Ambient exposures to selected volatile organic compounds and the risk of prostate cancer in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about environmental factors that may increase the risk of prostate cancer. We estimated associations between incident prostate cancer and environmental concentrations of five ambient volatile organic compounds (VOCs): benzene; n-decane; ethylbenzene; hexane; and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene. Methods: This study is based on a population-based case-control study of incident prostate cancer (PROtEuS) in men ≤ 75 years of age living in Montreal, Canada, in 2005 to 2012. We included 1172 cases and 1177 population controls. We had personal information, lifetime residential addresses, occupational exposures, and a variety of area-wide covariables. We inferred concentrations of the five VOCs using Bayesian geostatistical models using data from a dense environmental survey conducted in Montreal in 2005 to 2006. We used different sets of adjustments to estimate odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals. Results: We found nonlinear associations such that the ORs increased monotonically and then either flattened or fell off with increased exposures. The model that contained other environmental variables and contextual variables led to lower ORs and results were similar when we restricted analyses to controls recently screened or tested for prostate cancer or cases with low- or high-grade tumors. A change from the 5th to 25th percentile in mean environmental benzene levels led to an adjusted OR of 2.00 (95% confidence interval = 1.47, 2.71). Conclusion: We found positive associations between prostate cancer and concentrations of benzene and ethylbenzene, independently of previous testing for prostate cancer or tumor grade, suggesting that exposure to certain ambient VOCs may increase incidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".