Occupational exposure to nickel or hexavalent chromium and the risk of lung cancer (SYNERGY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) and nickel (Ni) are known occupational carcinogens, with frequent exposures, for example, in welding-related activities. However, limited evidence exists on the exposure-response relationship of Cr(VI) or Ni with lung-cancer risk. We estimated lung-cancer risks based on quantitative indices of occupational exposure to each metal, and their interaction with smoking habits. Methods Fourteen case-control studies from Europe and Canada (16,901 cases, 20,965 control subjects) were pooled. A measurement-based job-exposure matrix was used to estimate year- and region-specific exposure levels for Cr(VI) and Ni, which were linked to the study subjects’ occupational histories. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, adjusting for study, age group, smoking, and exposure to other occupational lung carcinogens. Results The OR for the highest quartile (>99.5 μg/m3-years) of cumulative exposure to Cr(VI) in men was 1.32 (95% CI 1.19-1.47) and for nickel (highest quartile >78.1 μg/m3-years) OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.15-1.45). Corresponding effect estimates in women were slightly lower. The joint effects of Cr(VI) and nickel with smoking were generally greater than additive. Conclusions We observed positive exposure-response relationships in the low-dose range of Cr(VI) and Ni exposures, based on a large study population including detailed information on smoking habits and a measurement-based job-exposure matrix. Although, we cannot rule out a combined classical measurement and Berkson error structure that may have caused bias in our risk estimates, our results provide empirical evidence to further specify preventive measures at the workplace in order to protect workers from hazardous substances. Key messages • Relatively low cumulative levels of occupational exposure to Cr(VI) and Ni were associated with increased ORs for lung cancer, particularly in men. • Important empirical insights for the prevention of cancer at the workplace can be drawn from the results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".