Printed in USA Occupational Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer Results from a
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population-based case-control study of cancer and occupation was carried out in Montreal, Canada. Between 1979 and 1986, 449 pathologically confirmed cases of prostate cancer were interviewed, as well as 1,550 cancer controls and 533 population controls. Job histories were evaluated by a team of chemist/ hygienists using a checklist of 294 workplace chemicals. After preliminary evaluation, 17 occupations, 11 industries, and 27 substances were selected for multivanate logistic regression analyses to estimate the odds ratio between each occupational circumstance and prostate cancer with control for potential confounders. There was moderate support for risk due to the following occupations: electrical power workers, water transport workers, aircraft fabricators, metal product fabricators, structural metal erectors, and railway transport workers. The following substances exhibited moderately strong associations: metallic dust, liquid fuel combustion products, lubncating oils and greases, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons from coal. While the population attributable risk, estimated at between 12 % and 2 1 % for these occupational exposures, may be an overestimate due to our method of analysis, even if the true attnbutable fraction were in the range of 5-10%, this represents an important public health issue. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:363-73. carcinogens; fossil fuels; industrial oils; metals; occupational exposure; prostatic neoplasms; nsk factors
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".