Lung Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to Pairs of Five Lung Carcinogens: Results from a Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies (SYNERGY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While much research has been done to identify individual workplace lung carcinogens, little is known about joint effects on risk when workers are exposed to multiple agents. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the pairwise joint effects of occupational exposures to asbestos, respirable crystalline silica, metals (i.e., nickel, chromium-VI), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) on lung cancer risk, overall and by major histologic subtype, while accounting for cigarette smoking. METHODS: In the international 14-center SYNERGY project, occupational exposures were assigned to 16,901 lung cancer cases and 20,965 control subjects using a quantitative job-exposure matrix (SYN-JEM). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for ever vs. never exposure using logistic regression models stratified by sex and adjusted for study center, age, and smoking habits. Joint effects among pairs of agents were assessed on multiplicative and additive scales, the latter by calculating the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). RESULTS: = 0.05). In women, several pairwise joint effects were observed for small cell lung cancer including exposure to PAH/silica (OR = 5.12; CI: 1.77, 8.48), and to asbestos/silica (OR = 4.32; CI: 1.35, 7.29), where exposure to PAH/silica resulted in a synergistic effect (RERI: 3.45; CI: 0.10, 6.8). DISCUSSION: Small or no deviation from additive or multiplicative effects was observed, but co-exposure to the selected lung carcinogens resulted generally in higher risk than exposure to individual agents, highlighting the importance to reduce and control exposure to carcinogens in workplaces and the general environment. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13380.
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 | 0.028 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".