Occupational exposure to nickel and hexavalent chromium and the risk of lung cancer in a pooled analysis of case-control studies (SYNERGY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited evidence regarding the exposure-effect relationship between lung-cancer risk and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) or nickel. We estimated lung-cancer risks in relation to quantitative indices of occupational exposure to Cr(VI) and nickel and their interaction with smoking habits. We pooled 14 case-control studies from Europe and Canada, including 16 901 lung-cancer cases and 20 965 control subjects. A measurement-based job-exposure-matrix estimated job-year-region specific exposure levels to Cr(VI) and nickel, which were linked to the subjects' occupational histories. Odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for study, age group, smoking habits and exposure to other occupational lung carcinogens. Due to their high correlation, we refrained from mutually adjusting for Cr(VI) and nickel independently. In men, ORs for the highest quartile of cumulative exposure to CR(VI) were 1.32 (95% CI 1.19-1.47) and 1.29 (95% CI 1.15-1.45) in relation to nickel. Analogous results among women were: 1.04 (95% CI 0.48-2.24) and 1.29 (95% CI 0.60-2.86), respectively. In men, excess lung-cancer risks due to occupational Cr(VI) and nickel exposure were also observed in each stratum of never, former and current smokers. Joint effects of Cr(VI) and nickel with smoking were in general greater than additive, but not different from multiplicative. In summary, relatively low cumulative levels of occupational exposure to Cr(VI) and nickel were associated with increased ORs for lung cancer, particularly in men. However, we cannot rule out a combined classical measurement and Berkson-type of error structure, which may cause differential bias of risk estimates.
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 | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".