Wood dust exposure and risks of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wood dust has been confirmed as one kind of human carcinogen. However, there are inconsistent study results of exploring the relationship of exposure to wood dust and occurrence of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). For a greater clarification, the authors systemically reviewed the relevant published articles on the relationship of exposure to wood dust and occurrence of NPC. And meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: The databases of PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), Embase and Science Direct were searched for the relevant publications. And Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed for judging the quality of articles. Random-effect model was utilized for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among a total of 583 retrieved items, 10 case-control studies and 1 cohort study were selected. The ratio of maximal/minimal exposure concentration of wood dust yielded a pooled odd ratio (OR) of 2.18 (95% CI = 1.62-2.93, P = 0.063) with a moderate heterogeneity (I2: 43.0%; P = 0.001). And subgroup analysis was performed for such factors as exposure status, exposure population and geographic region. No publishing bias was noted. Exposing to a high concentration of wood dust was positively proportional to occurring risk of NPC. CONCLUSION: It hints at the contributing effect of wood dust upon NPC. For eliminating the effects of other confounding factors, larger prospective cohort studies are required for further elucidating the relationship of exposure to wood dust and occurrence of NPC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".