Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and anthropometric measures of obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are viewed as a major potential link between the environment and obesity development. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between exposure to EDCs and obesity. DATA SOURCES, DESIGN AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception to 6 June 2018 for studies primarily addressing the association between exposure to EDCs after the age of 2 years and anthropometric measures of obesity or body fat. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened and conducted data extraction and synthesis. A third reviewer resolved disagreements. RESULTS: A total of 73 studies investigating bisphenol A (32 286 individuals), organochlorine compounds (34 567 individuals), phthalates (21 401 individuals), polybrominated biphenyls (2937 individuals), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (5174 individuals), parabens (4097 individuals), benzoic acid (3671 individuals) and polyfluoroalkyl substances (349 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. Most had a cross-sectional design and low or medium risk of bias. In qualitative analysis, bisphenol A and phthalates were consistently associated with general and abdominal obesity, in children and adults, and some studies suggested this association was age-dependent and gender-dependent. Meta-analysis indicated a significant association between exposure to bisphenol A and overweight (OR 1.254, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.564), obesity (OR 1.503, 95% CI 1.273 to 1.774) and increased waist circumference (OR 1.503, 95% CI 1.267 to 1.783) in adults, and between exposure to 2,5-dichlorophenol and obesity in children (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1018 to 3.184). CONCLUSION: Most observational studies supported a positive association between obesity and exposure to EDCs. Although causality cannot be determined from these data, they underscore the need to limit human exposure to EDCs in light of the evidence from animal and cell-based studies indicating the effects of these chemicals on adiposity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018074548.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".