Printed in U.S.A. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh166 Hair Dye Use and Risk of Adult Acute Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain chemicals in hair dyes are known animal carcinogens. Darker, more permanent, and earlier dye formulations may be more carcinogenic than other dye types. For 769 adult acute leukemia cases and 623 population-based controls in a US and Canadian case-control study in 1986–1989, the authors asked separately about use of permanent and nonpermanent (semipermanent and temporary) hair dye use. Use was reported by 45 % of women and 6 % of men. There was a modest positive association for ever use of permanent dyes (odds ratio = 1.5, 95 % confidence interval: 1.0, 2.1), which was stronger for long duration (15 or more years) of use (odds ratio = 1.8, 95 % confidence interval: 1.0, 3.1). The greatest odds ratio was for 15 or more years of using hair dyes up to six times per year (odds ratio = 2.4, 95 % confidence interval: 1.0, 5.8); the corresponding odds ratio for use six or more times a year was lower, suggesting the possibility of misclassification of dye type among frequent users, since nonpermanent dyes tend to be used more frequently than permanent dyes. Nonpermanent dyes were not associated with risk. Long duration of permanent dye use may have a larger impact on the risk of adult acute leukemia and other hematopoietic cancers than prior epidemiologic data suggest. case-control studies; hair dyes; leukemia; measurement Abbreviations: CALGB, Cancer and Leukemia Group B; CI, confidence interval. Through the years, hair dyes have contained mutagenic
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.836 | 0.707 |
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".