Prevalent occupational exposures and risk of lung cancer among women: Results from the application of the Canadian Job‐Exposure Matrix (CANJEM) to a combined set of ten case–control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, lung cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women. The present study explored associations between occupational exposures that are prevalent among women, and lung cancer. METHODS: Data from 10 case-control studies of lung cancer from Europe, Canada, and New Zealand conducted between 1988 and 2008 were combined. Lifetime occupational history and information on nonoccupational factors including smoking were available for 3040 incident lung cancer cases and 4187 controls. We linked each reported job to the Canadian Job-Exposure Matrix (CANJEM), which provided estimates of probability, intensity, and frequency of exposure to each selected agent in each job. For this analysis, we selected 15 agents (cleaning agents, biocides, cotton dust, synthetic fibers, formaldehyde, cooking fumes, organic solvents, cellulose, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from petroleum, ammonia, metallic dust, alkanes C18+, iron compounds, isopropanol, and calcium carbonate) that had lifetime exposure prevalence of at least 5% in the combined study population. For each agent, we estimated lung cancer risk in each study center for ever-exposure, by duration of exposure, and by cumulative exposure, using separate logistic regression models adjusted for smoking and other covariates. We then estimated the meta-odds ratios using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: None of the agents assessed showed consistent and compelling associations with lung cancer among women. The following agents showed elevated odds ratio in some analyses: metallic dust, iron compounds, isopropanol, and organic solvents. Future research into occupational lung cancer risk factors among women should prioritize these agents.
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 | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".