Global evidence on occupational sun exposure and keratinocyte cancers: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual studies have suggested that the association between occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and the development of keratinocyte cancers (KCs) may only be valid in populations of European ancestry living in certain geographical regions. Comparative global data are scarce and so this review aimed to summarize current evidence on the association between occupational exposure to solar UVR and the development of KCs, with a specific focus on geographical location and skin colour. Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for potentially relevant records. Extracted data were summarized by study, country and region. We included one prospective cohort study and 18 case-control studies (n = 15 233) from 12 countries in regions where the majority of the population is white skinned (Americas, Europe and Oceania). Eighteen of the 19 studies reported effect estimates suggesting an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and/or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) among outdoor workers. Only 11 studies found a significantly increased risk and many had imprecise estimates. There was a significantly increased risk of BCC and SCC in individual studies in North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, Western Europe and Southern Europe, but not across regions or countries. Overall, 95% of studies reported higher risks among outdoor workers, although the increases in risk were statistically significant in just over half of the studies. Well-designed and sufficiently powered occupational case-control and cohort studies with adequate adjustment for confounding factors and other risk factors are required to provide more accurate risk estimates for occupational KC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".