Exposure to cadmium and head and neck cancers: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cadmium (Cd) is a widespread environmental pollutant. A number of observational studies have reported that Cd might be a cause of nasopharyngeal (NPC), pharyngeal (PC), or laryngeal cancers (LC). In this study evidence about the relation of Cd and NPC, PC, and LC has been summarized. A literature review was conducted until 20 June 2020 in PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, Web of Science and Google scholar databases to investigate the epidemiologic evidence for the relation between cadmium exposure and cancers of the nasopharynx, pharynx, and larynx. Ten articles were selected after careful screening of retrieved studies. All of these studies obtained a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality score from 6 to 8. Due to high heterogeneity, in all analyses, random effect was used. The pooled results showed that cadmium levels in NPC (standard mean difference (SMD=0.55; 95% CI=0.20, 0.89; p=0.002) and PC (SMD=9.79; 95% CI=0.62, 18.96; p=0.036) patients/tissues were significantly higher than their controls. But cadmium levels were not significantly different between LC cases/tissues and their controls. (SMD=-0.05; 95% CI=-0.99, 0.89; p=0.921). Exposure to cadmium is likely to cause nasopharyngeal and pharyngeal cancer.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it