Cancer Incidence and Mortality among Firefighters: An Overview of Epidemiologic Systematic Reviews
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
Firefighters are exposed to carcinogens that may increase their risk of developing many types of occupational cancer. Many systematic reviews (SRs) have been produced with sometimes conflicting conclusions. In this overview of reviews, we aim to assess the conclusion consistency across the available systematic reviews on the cancer risk in firefighters. Literature searches were conducted in several indexed databases and grey literature to retrieve systematic reviews aiming to evaluate cancer incidence or cancer mortality in firefighters. Results from included SRs were analyzed according to the tumour site. Out of 1054 records identified by the search in the databases, a total of 11 SRs were ultimately included. The original studies (n = 104) analyzed in the SRs were published between 1959 and 2018. The results consistently reported a significant increase in the incidence of rectal, prostate, bladder and testicular cancers as well as mesothelioma and malignant melanoma in firefighters compared to the general population. The SRs also indicate that death rates from rectal cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are higher among firefighters. Consistent SR results suggest that several types of cancer may be more frequent in firefighters than in the general population.
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 | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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