MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification of Occupational Cancer Risks In British Columbia: A Population-Based Case–Control Study of 1129 Cases of Bladder Cancer

2005· article· en· W81628176 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pierre R. Band, Nhu D. Le, Amy C. MacArthur, Raymond Fang, Richard P. Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBladder cancerMedicineEnvironmental healthCancerCase-control studyLung cancerPopulationLogistic regressionOccupational medicineOccupational exposureOdds ratioInternal medicineToxicologyOncologySurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We collected information on lifetime occupational histories, smoking, and alcohol consumption from 15,463 incident cancer cases. Occupational risk factors for bladder cancer are presented in this report. METHOD: A matched case-control design was used. All cases were diagnosed with bladder cancers, with controls being internal controls consisting of all other cancer sites, excluding lung and unknown primary. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression for matched sets data and the likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Excess bladder cancer risks was observed in a number of occupation and industries, particularly those involving exposure to metals, including aluminum, paint and solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, diesel engine emissions, and textiles. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study are in line with those from the literature and further suggest that exposure to silica and to electromagnetic fields may carry an increased risk of bladder cancer.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations46
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207