Occupational cancer: public health interventions to minimize its burden and impact on the society.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cancer has emerged as a major public health concern owing to its magnitude, worldwide distribution, impact on the quality of life, financial burden on the patient / family / society / health care delivery system, and associated mortality. Findings of a study have shown that approximately 19% of all types of cancers have been attributed to the environmental factor. Almost 900 potential carcinogens have been identified and evaluated for their carcinogenic potential in the workplace, a major fraction of which is preventable. A wide range of potential factors have been identified that have contributed to the rising trends of occupational cancer. In order to reduce the magnitude of occupational cancer, there is an immense need to formulate a holistic strategy which should respond to the needs of all stakeholders. To conclude, a significant rise has been observed in the incidence of occupational cancer and there is an immense need to plan and implement scientific interventions to minimize thousands of unnecessary deaths and suffering from occupational cancer. References Pruss-Ustun A, Corvalan C. Preventing disease through healthy environments: Towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease. Geneva: WHO press; 2006. Available from:http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdiseasebegin.pdf. (accessed March 2014) International Agency for Research on Cancer [Internet]. GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. [update 2014]. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx/. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010; 127(12):2893-917. Christiani DC. Combating environmental causes of cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(9):791-3. Blair A, Marrett L, Beane Freeman L. Occupational cancer in developed countries. Environ Health. 2011; 10(Suppl 1):S9. Pandey KR. Occupational cancer kills more than 200,000 people a year. BMJ. 2007; 334(7600):925. Santana VS, Ribeiro FS. Occupational cancer burden in developing countries and the problem of informal workers. Environ Health. 2011; 10(Suppl 1):S10. Lee LJ, Chang YY, Liou SH, Wang JD. Estimation of benefit of prevention of occupational cancer for comparative risk assessment: methods and examples. Occup Environ Med. 2012; 69(8):582-6. Binazzi A, Scarselli A, Marinaccio A. The burden of mortality with costs in productivity loss from occupational cancer in Italy. Am J Ind Med. 2013; 56(11):1272-9. Straif K, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Baan R, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. A review of human carcinogens--part C: metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(5):453-4. Muirhead CR, Haylock R. Ionising radiation and occupational cancer in Britain. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107(9):1660-1. Hutchings SJ, Rushton L; British occupational cancer burden study group. Occupational cancer in Britain. Industry sector results. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107(Suppl 1):92-103. Park K. Occupational Health. In: Park K, editor. Text Book of Preventive and Social Medicine. 20th ed. Jabalpur: Banarsidas Bhanot Publishers; 2009; p.710-9. Zare Sakhvidi MJ, Mirzaei Aliabadi M, Sakhvidi FZ, Halvani G, Morowatisharifabad MA, Tezerjani HD, et al. Occupational cancer risk perception in Iranian workers. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2014; 69(3):167-71. Verger P, Pardon C, Dumesnil H, Charrier D, De Labrusse B, Lehucher-Michel MP, et al. Occupational physicians' attitudes and practices in relation to occupational cancer prevention: a qualitative study in southeastern France. Int J Occup Environ Health 2010; 16(3):320-9. Huff J. Occupational cancer and social inequities. Eur J Public Health. 2011; 21(1):129. Landrigan PJ, Espina C, Neira M. Global prevention of environmental and occupational cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 2011; 119(7):280-1. Kawai K. Causes and prevention of occupational cancer. J UOEH. 2013; 35(Suppl): 107-11. Hohenadel K, Pichora E, Marrett L, Bukvic D, Brown J, Harris SA, et al. Priority issues in occupational cancer research: Ontario stakeholder perspectives. Chronic Dis Inj Can. 2011; 31(4):147-51. World Health Organization. Cancer and control: knowledge into action and control – WHO guide for effective programs. Geneva: WHO press; 2007. Straif K. Estimating the burden of occupational cancer as a strategic step to prevention. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107(Suppl 1):S1-2. Garcia AM, Gonzalez-Galarzo MC, Kauppinen T, Delclos GL, Benavides FG. A job-exposure matrix for research and surveillance of occupational health and safety in Spanish workers: MatEmESp. Am J Ind Med. 2013; 56(10):1226-38. Bottazzi M. Insurance against occupational cancer in Italy and in Europe. Epidemiol Prev. 2009; 33(4-5 Suppl 2):85-93. Vlaanderen J, Vermeulen R, Heederik D, Kromhout H; ECNIS integrated risk assessment group, European union network of excellence. Guidelines to evaluate human observational studies for quantitative risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2008; 116(12):1700-5.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».