Opium as a carcinogen: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opium and its pyrolysates have been investigated as potential carcinogenic material through several studies in different body systems; however, the results were controversial and no consensus was achieved with this regard. Thus, we aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze all existed evidence regarding association between opium consumption and cancer. METHODS: Four major electronic databases including ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase along with Magiran and SID were searched thoroughly for all published articles from inception up to September 25, 2020. All studies were appraised critically by Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Relevant demographic data and the intended results of the selected studies were extracted and their Odds ratios (OR) were pooled using Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA). The cumulative risk of opium for developing different cancers was calculated. FINDINGS: 34 studies comprised of 18,230 individuals were entered in our systematic review and finally 32 publications were enrolled in meta-analysis. Overall, using the random effects model, opium consumption was associated with increased rate of malignancies in both minimally[OR = 4.14 95%CI = (3.32-5.15)] and fully adjusted [OR = 4.35 95%CI = (3.36-5.62)] analyses. Moreover, using random effects fully adjusted model, the subgroup analysis revealed increased risk for larynx [OR = 9.58 95%CI = (6.31-14.53)], respiratory [OR = 9.02 95%CI = (6.27-12.96)], head and neck [OR = 8•03 95%CI = (4.03-16.00)], and colon [OR=5.58 95%CI = (3.14-9.92)] cancers for opium consumers compared to non-consumers. INTERPRETATION: Opium consumption is highly associated with all reported types of cancers, especially in fully adjusted model; however, basic pathophysiology should be further investigated. FUNDING: None.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".