ArticleWork and health2025
The Relationship between Occupation and Lung Cancer Incidence in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.
Article in Work and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer remains the foremost cause of cancer mortality among US women, with a notable proportion arising in never-smokers. While occupational exposures contribute to lung cancer risk, women have been underrepresented in occupational studies. Therefore, we examined the relationship between occupational titles and lung cancer incidence in women, stratified by smoking exposure. Methods: Postmenopausal women (N = 93,676) entered the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study prospective cohort beginning in 1993. Participants reported their three longest-held paid jobs at the study baseline and women were followed for health outcomes. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for lung cancer incidence in association with ever working in a given occupation, as well as by employment duration (<10 years, ≥10 years), with adjustment for smoking, demographics, and lifestyle factors. Effect modification by smoking status was assessed in stratified models. Results: Higher lung cancer risks were observed among women employed in management, sales, food service, and personal care occupations, as well as for several less common occupations, including life sciences, museum-related technical roles, and farming, construction, and production jobs. For example, ever working as Archivists, Curators, and Museum Technicians was associated with higher risk (OR = 2.55; 95% CI: 1.22-5.32), as was employment in Farming, Fishing, and Forestry occupations (OR = 1.98; 95% CI: 1.11-3.55), compared to women who never worked in those jobs. Longer-duration employment (≥10 years) as Life Scientists was also associated with elevated risk (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.19-4.49). Most associations did not differ significantly by smoking, or were stronger among never-smokers than smokers, suggesting potential occupational risks independent of smoking. Conclusions: Occupational factors may increase women's lung cancer risk beyond smoking, necessitating targeted prevention and future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.