Key characteristics of 86 agents known to cause cancer in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the inception of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in the early 1970s, the IARC Monographs Programme has evaluated more than 1000 agents with respect to carcinogenic hazard; of these, up to and including Volume 119 of the IARC Monographs, 120 agents met the criteria for classification as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Volume 100 of the IARC Monographs provided a review and update of Group 1 carcinogens. These agents were divided into six broad categories: (I) pharmaceuticals; (II) biological agents; (III) arsenic, metals, fibers, and dusts; (IV) radiation; (V) personal habits and indoor combustions; and (VI) chemical agents and related occupations. Data on biological mechanisms of action (MOA) were extracted from the Monographs to assemble a database on the basis of ten key characteristics attributed to human carcinogens. After some grouping of similar agents, the characteristic profiles were examined for 86 Group 1 agents for which mechanistic information was available in the IARC Monographs up to and including Volume 106, based upon data derived from human in vivo, human in vitro, animal in vivo, and animal in vitro studies. The most prevalent key characteristic was “is genotoxic”, followed by “alters cell proliferation, cell death, or nutrient supply” and “induces oxidative stress”. Most agents exhibited several of the ten key characteristics, with an average of four characteristics per agent, a finding consistent with the notion that cancer development in humans involves multiple pathways. Information on the key characteristics was often available from multiple sources, with many agents demonstrating concordance between human and animal sources, particularly with respect to genotoxicity. Although a detailed comparison of the characteristics of different types of agents was not attempted here, the overall characteristic profiles for pharmaceutical agents and for chemical agents and related occupations appeared similar. Further in-depth analyses of this rich database of characteristics of human carcinogens are expected to provide additional insights into the MOA of human cancer development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".