Lung Cancer and Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide and Traffic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Exposure to traffic-related air pollutants is an important public health issue. Here, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of research examining the relationship of measures of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and of various measures of traffic-related air pollution exposure with lung cancer. METHODS: We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of studies examining exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and NOx and its association with lung cancer. We identified 20 studies that met inclusion criteria and provided information necessary to estimate the change in lung cancer per 10-μg/m3 increase in exposure to measured NO2. Further, we qualitatively assessed the evidence of association between distance to roadways and traffic volume associated with lung cancer. RESULTS: The meta-estimate for the change in lung cancer associated with a 10-μg/m3 increase in exposure to NO2 was 4% (95% CI: 1%, 8%). The meta-estimate for change in lung cancer associated with a 10-μg/m3 increase in NOx was similar and slightly more precise, 3% (95% CI: 1%, 5%). The NO2 meta-estimate was robust to different confounding adjustment sets as well as the exposure assessment techniques used. Trim-and-fill analyses suggest that if publication bias exists, the overall meta-estimate is biased away from the null. Forest plots for measures of traffic volume and distance to roadways largely suggest a modest increase in lung cancer risk. CONCLUSION: We found consistent evidence of a relationship between NO2, as a proxy for traffic-sourced air pollution exposure, with lung cancer. Studies of lung cancer related to residential proximity to roadways and NOx also suggest increased risk, which may be attributable partly to air pollution exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently classified outdoor air pollution and particulate matter as carcinogenic (Group 1). These meta-analyses support this conclusion, drawing particular attention to traffic-sourced air pollution. CITATION: Hamra GB, Laden F, Cohen AJ, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Brauer M, Loomis D. 2015. Lung cancer and exposure to nitrogen dioxide and traffic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 123:1107-1112; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408882.
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 | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".