A systematic review of occupational exposure to synthetic vitreous fibers and mesothelioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether available epidemiological and toxicological data suggest an increased risk of mesothelioma among workers exposed to synthetic vitreous fibers (SVF). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of epidemiological studies on the risk of mesothelioma among workers exposed to SVF, and toxicological studies on SVF and mesothelioma. RESULTS: Seven cohort studies were conducted among workers employed in production of rock/slag wool, glass wool, or continuous glass filament in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Of the six deaths from mesothelioma identified in these studies, three had exposure to asbestos. A review of death certificates in a study of rock wool production workers identified one additional probable death. A formal comparison with expected deaths is not feasible. Four community-based case-control studies were identified, of which three reported an increased risk among SVF-exposed workers. The number of cases not exposed to asbestos was less, and residual confounding from asbestos exposure misclassification may explain the association in these studies. The toxicology review of SVF suggested that they present a low hazard mostly due to their low biopersistence, typically with a half-life in rat studies of tens of days compared to amphibole asbestos which has a half-life of 400-500 days. CONCLUSIONS: The combined evidence from epidemiology and toxicology provide little evidence that exposure to SVF increases the risk of mesothelioma.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".