210 Residential radon exposure and lung cancer – a feasibility study in the interior health authority Region of British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada and is the leading cause of death in both men and women. The most common causative agent is cigarette smoke. 1 However, a less publicly recognized cause is radon exposure.2 Geologic surveys of the Interior Health region of British Columbia (BC) have shown elevated levels of uranium and, consequently, elevated radon levels in the soil within this area.3 To date, there have been no published case-control studies, especially examining the feasibility of measuring residential radon levels in patients diagnosed with lung cancer within this region. This study aims to enroll cancer patients seen at BC Cancer in the city of Kelowna and prospectively measure the radon levels in their homes using alpha-track detectors. The primary objective is to identify the feasibility of a larger-scale study by determining the recruitment and retention rates while highlighting the successes and challenges faced while conducting the study on a smaller sample size.Methods Single-centered prospective case-control study based in BC Cancer Kelowna. Patients with lung cancer and their close acquaintances without lung cancer were respectively categorized into case and control groups. All participants were above the age of 50 and resided within the Interior Health Authority for at least 5 years. Subjective lifestyle information and histological diagnosis were collected. Alpha-track radon detectors were provided, and participants were instructed to keep them in place for 100 days during the late fall and winter seasons. Upon completion, the participants were informed of their radon level and whether it was within Canadian guidelines.Results Over 316 individuals were approached, and 99 of these individuals enrolled and consented to the study (63 case and 36 control). The recruitment rate was 19.9%, and the retention rate was 80.9% for case participants, while the recruitment rate was 78.3% and the retention rate was 86.1% for control participants. The mean radon level in case participants was 171 Bq/m 3(18–860 Bq/m3)compared to 160 Bq/m3(12–535 Bq/m3) in control participants (p = 0.029). The most prevalent histological lung cancer subtype found in case participants with elevated radon levels was squamous cell carcinoma (p = 0.019). This feasibility study provided valuable insight into healthcare quality and safety by observing the appropriateness of radon testing during cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, it identified crucial challenges faced along the way, such as laboratory delays, seasonality of testing, participant compliance, and carrier mail, which should all be addressed before future study upscaling.References Cancer CCS/S canadienne du. Canadian Cancer Society. [cited 2025 Mar 18]. Cancer statistics at a glance. Available from: https://cancer.ca/en/research/cancer-statistics/cancer-statistics-at-a-glanceCancer CCS/S canadienne du. Canadian Cancer Society. 2024 [cited 2025 Mar 18]. Risks for lung cancer. Available from: https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-types/lung/risksMalinovsky G, Yarmoshenko I, Vasilyev A. Meta-analysis of case-control studies on the relationship between lung cancer and indoor radon exposure. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2019 Mar;58(1):39–47.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".