MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995430696 · doi:10.1002/tqem.21661

Do disinfection byproducts in drinking water have an effect on human cancer risk worldwide? A meta‐analysis

2019· article· en· W2995430696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laleh R. Kalankesh, Susana Rodríguez‐Couto, Mohammad Ali Zazouli, Mahmood Moosazadeh, Seyed-Nouraddin Mousavinasab

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Quality Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisOdds ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalCancerCohort studySubgroup analysisBreast cancerColorectal cancerOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the present study, a meta‐analysis was carried out to clarify the association between disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in drinking water and human cancer risk worldwide. Kidney, colorectal, esophagus, urinary bladder, brain, breast, leukemia, lung, and rectum cancers were selected to perform this analysis. According to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis protocol (PRISMA) guidelines, the relevant studies were identified and selection criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) were applied. Next, effective subgroups in these studies (gender, type of drinking water source, and type of DBPs) were analyzed. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. In addition, this overall study included analyses of 16 case–control and 3 cohort studies. The overall odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between DBPs and cancer risk was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94–1.09). The summary ORs of cancer risk were 1.04 (95% CI, 0.89–1.19) for kidney; 0.98 (95% CI, 0.87–1.09) for colorectal; 1.07 (95% CI, 0.84–1.29) for esophagus; 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80–1.06) for pancreatic; 1.00 (95% CI, 0.83–1.18) for brain; 1.13 (95% CI, 0.99–1.26) for breast; 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72–1.13) for leukemia; and 1.18 (95% CI, 1–1.36) for lung cancers. The results of this meta‐analysis suggested that there is not a significant association between DBPs in water and cancer risk. In addition, subgroup analysis shows a positive association with colorectal and kidney cancer risk in men, as well as colon and breast cancers in females. Studies of both genders have shown a significant association between lung and pancreatic cancers. Moreover, this study finds a significant relationship between cancer rate and consumers of city water and bottled water sources. In analyzing different types of DBPs in water, chlorine and trichloromethane show a significant association in increasing cancer risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.059
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Quality ManagementSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207