4.2 Article

Long-Term Health Experience of Jet Engine Manufacturing Workers: VI Incidence of Malignant Central Nervous System Neoplasms in Relation to Estimated Workplace Exposures

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182749c4a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Connecticut Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health
  2. Communications Facilitation Workgroup
  3. California Department of Public Health by California Health and Safety Code Section [103885]
  4. National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program [HHSN261201000140C, HHSN261201000035C, HHSN261201000034C]
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries [U58DP003862-01]
  6. Georgia Department of Public Health
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  8. National Program of Cancer Registries at the CDC
  9. National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program
  10. [5U58DP000817]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether glioblastoma (GB) incidence rates among jet engine manufacturing workers were associated with specific chemical or physical exposures. Methods: Subjects were 210,784 workers employed from 1952 to 2001. We conducted a cohort incidence study and two nested case-control studies with focus on the North Haven facility where we previously observed a not statistically significant overall elevation in GB rates. We estimated individual-level exposure metrics for 11 agents. Results: In the total cohort, none of the agent metrics considered was associated with increased GB risk. The GB incidence rates in North Haven were also not related to workplace exposures, including the blue haze exposure unique to North Haven. Conclusions: If not due to chance alone, GB rates in North Haven may reflect external occupational factors, nonoccupational factors, or workplace factors unique to North Haven unmeasured in the current evaluation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据