Comments on systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of man-made vitreous fibers and respiratory health outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I read with great interest the recent meta-analysis published by McElvenny et al., who stated their objective as confirming the findings of our “previous systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) in relation to malignant disease” (Egnot et al., 2020). I appreciate the authors’ engagement with our work and welcome continued research on this important topic. McElvenny et al. performed a meta-analysis of cohort studies evaluating the association between MMVF exposure and lung cancer that yielded an elevated effect estimate (pooled relative risk [RR]=1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 1.32). The authors noted that this result was higher than the result of a similar meta-analysis of cohort studies reported by our study (pooled RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.86, 1.09) and attributed this discrepancy to various methodological differences. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risk of respiratory tract cancer (i.e. larynx, trachea, bronchus, and lung) among individuals with occupational exposure to only the most common types of MMVFs (i.e. glass wool and rock/slag wool). It appears that the McElvenny et al. study included additional types of specialized MMVFs, such as continuous glass filament, and specifically focused on evaluating lung cancer risk rather than broader respiratory tract cancer risk. These important differences in study inclusion criteria and the primary outcome of interest led to different results from the 2 meta-analyses. In addition to our primary meta-analysis of respiratory tract cancer risk, we also reported findings from a meta-analysis of studies that met our inclusion criteria and estimated lung cancer risk. This more appropriate comparison of findings from the McElvenny et al. and Suder Egnot et al. meta-analyses of lung cancer risk reveals that the 2 independent studies yielded quite similar results (pooled RR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.32 versus pooled RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.93, 1.30, respectively). Based on the methods provided by McElvenny et al., we suspect that this slight difference in our respective results is likely attributable to differences in our prioritization of effect estimates for inclusion in the meta-analysis (e.g. we prioritized effect estimates excluding participants with prior known asbestos exposure, and McElvenny et al. prioritized effect estimates statistically adjusted for asbestos exposure, where possible). I respectfully submit this clarification in the interest of supporting accurate interpretation of the evidence and agree with McElvenny et al. that new evidence from the ongoing large cohort studies would offer critical insights into the potential long-term human health impacts of occupational MMVF exposure. The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association has sponsored an ongoing research contract with Stantec. The funding association had no involvement or influence in the writing or conclusions of this Letter. N.S.E. is employed by Stantec, a consulting firm that provides scientific advice to government, corporations, law firms, and various scientific/professional organizations. No data were used in this study.
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 | 0,172 | 0,532 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,017 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,012 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,037 | 0,032 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,004 |
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 ».