Occupation and Breast Cancer A Canadian Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: A local collaborative process was launched in Windsor, Ontario, Canada to explore the role of occupation as a risk factor for cancer. An initial hypothesis-generating study found an increased risk for breast cancer among women aged 55 years or younger who had ever worked in farming. On the basis of this result, a 2-year case–control study was undertaken to evaluate the lifetime occupational histories of women with breast cancer. The results indicate that women with breast cancer were nearly three times more likely to have worked in agriculture when compared to the controls (OR = 2.80 [95 % CI, 1.6–4.8]). The risk for those who worked in agriculture and subsequently worked in automotive-related manufacturing was further elevated (OR = 4.0 [95 % CI, 1.7–9.9]). The risk for those employed in agriculture and subsequently employed in health care was also elevated (OR = 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1–4.6]). Farming tended to be among the earlier jobs worked, often during adolescence. While this article has limitations including the
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".