MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412707799 · doi:10.1186/s12940-025-01205-3

Occupational Exposure to Engine Exhausts and Prostate Cancer Risk

2025· article· en· W4412707799 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christine Barul, Marie-Claude Rousseau, Marie‐Élise Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Cancer SocietyMinistère du Développement Économique, de l’Innovation et de l’ExportationProstate Cancer CanadaArmand-Frappier FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerEnvironmental healthPercentileOdds ratioPopulationConfidence intervalDemographyCancerInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Some engine exhausts (EEs) have been classified as carcinogens and/or can have hormone-modulating properties that could play a role in prostate cancer development. OBJECTIVE: We investigated associations between lifetime occupational exposure to various EEs and prostate cancer risk, overall and for aggressive cancers. METHODS: In a population-based case-control study conducted in Montreal, Canada, 1,924 incident histologically-confirmed prostate cancer cases (436 aggressive) and 1,989 population controls were recruited. Socio-demographics, lifestyle factors and a detailed occupational history were collected during in-person interviews. Industrial hygienists conducted evaluations of intensity, frequency and reliability of exposure to EEs resulting from the combustion of several fuels (any diesel, light- and heavy-duty diesel, leaded and unleaded gasoline, propane and jet fuel) in each job held ≥ 2 years. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for exposure to each EE, in association with prostate cancer risk, adjusting for age and then for potential lifestyle and occupational confounders, accounting for a 5-year latency period. As most associations were not linear, we fitted functions for changes in percentile distributions based on natural cubic splines. RESULTS: There was no evidence of associations between exposure to the various EEs and overall prostate cancer. However, for high-grade cancers, based on the fully-adjusted model, a change from the 25th to the 75th percentile of the exposure distribution of any diesel EE yielded an OR of 1.24 (95%CI 0.96-1.61), and of 1.27 (95% CI 0.80-2.01) for a change from the 75th to the 95th percentile. These increases reflected exposure to diesel EE from light-duty vehicles, associated with similar ORs. For leaded gasoline EE, a change from the 75th to the 95th percentile resulted in an age-adjusted OR of 1.36 (95%CI 0.88-2.11), which was attenuated to 1.12 (95%CI 0.63-2.02) after full adjustment. There were no associations with EE from unleaded gasoline, diesel from heavy-duty vehicles, jet fuel and propane. CONCLUSION: There was suggestive evidence for a deleterious role of occupational exposure to EE resulting from the combustion of any diesel, light-duty diesel and from leaded gasoline in the development of aggressive prostate cancer. Results were independent from prostate cancer screening patterns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental HealthSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207