MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324137719 · doi:10.1136/oem-2023-epicoh.202

O-59 Increased lung cancer risk and occupational benzene exposure: results from a pooled case-control study

2023· article· en· W4324137719 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenxin Wan, Susan Peters, Lützen Portengen, Ann Olsson, Joachim Schüz, Kurt Straíf, Hans Kromhout, Jelle Vlaanderen, Roel Vermeulen

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineOdds ratioLogistic regressionCarcinogenOccupational exposureCase-control studyEnvironmental healthCancerPopulationInternal medicineOncologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Benzene is widely present in various industries and ubiquitously in the general environment. Benzene has been classified as a known human carcinogen, but there is limited evidence linking benzene exposure with lung cancer. However, if such an association exists, this could have large implications for occupational and environmental risk assessment. We aimed to systematically investigate the association between occupational benzene exposure and lung cancer. <h3>Material and Methods</h3> Subjects from 14 case-control studies across Europe and Canada were pooled. We used a quantitative job-exposure matrix (BEN-JEM) to estimate benzene exposure based on occupation records. Logistic regression models were used to estimate lung cancer risk and various benzene exposure indices. We stratified analyses by smoking status and lung cancer subtypes, and rigorously adjusted for age, sex, smoking and other known occupational lung carcinogens. <h3>Results and Conclusion</h3> Analyses included 28048 subjects (12329 cases, 15719 controls). Lung cancer odds ratios ranged from 1.12 (95% CI 1.03-1.22) to 1.32 (95% CI 1.18-1.48) for groups with the lowest and highest cumulative exposure, respectively. An increasing trend was observed with duration of exposure (P&lt;0.001), while lung cancer risk decreased with increasing time since last exposure (P=0.02). These effects were seen for all lung cancer subtypes, in current, former and never smokers, and for both sexes, and were not unduly influenced by any particular occupational group or study. Based on our study in the general population, we found strong, consistent, and robust evidence linking occupational benzene exposure with lung cancer. By rigorously adjusting for smoking and other occupational exposures, our findings provide strong support for the association between benzene exposure and lung cancer. Such a link has a large implication for occupational and environmental risk assessment and reinforces the need to further reduce benzene exposure globally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207