Occupational exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to carry out a meta-analysis of studies on exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the risk of malignant melanoma (MM). We searched Scopus, PubMed, and reference lists; among 807 potentially relevant articles, we selected those based on 12 populations. Data were extracted according to a standardized form; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Meta-analyses were carried out according to fixed-effect and random-effects models. The fixed-effect summary relative risk (RR) for MM was 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-1.00]; the random-effects summary RR was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.78-1.32). The random-effects summary RR from eight occupational cohorts was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.91-1.35) and that from four community-based studies was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.36-1.31). The quality of the studies and the methods for PCB exposure assessment did not influence the RR. These results do not support the hypothesis of an association between PCB exposure and the risk of MM.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".