MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161091090 · doi:10.18332/tid/133704

A meta-analysis of active smoking and risk of meningioma

2021· review· en· W3161091090 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hong Chao sup sup, Yu Cheng sup sup, Jie Shan, Haifeng Xue, Weilan Xu, Hongjie Li, En Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Induced Diseases · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeningiomaTobacco controlClinical pharmacologyMedicinePsychologyPharmacologyPublic healthSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meningioma accounts for approximately 25% of all primary adult intracranial tumors, and it is more common in women. It is more common in middleaged and elderly patients 8 . Many epidemiological studies have investigated the possible link between the occurrence of meningioma and smoking, but the results were inconsistent. Three studies found a positive association between active smoking (in men 9- 11 ) and meningioma. However, others studies did not find a positive association between active smoking (in men Recently, a meta-analysis by Fan et al. However, the results of studies exploring the relationship between smoking exposure and the occurrence of meningioma are inconsistent. METHODS A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science Direct (up to June 2020) databases was performed. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed for judging the quality of articles. A random-effects model was utilized for meta-analysis. Association analysis between smoking and meningioma was based on the adjusted RR and the 95% CI, as reported by eligible studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed and publication bias was assessed. Subgroup analysis was conducted by geographical region, study design, sex, study quality, and adjustments of RR score. Begg's and Egger's tests were employed for detecting publication bias. RESULTS Twelve articles, including 2 cohort studies and 10 case-control studies, and a total of 1210167 participants were identified. The pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) implied that smoking was not associated with increased risk of meningioma in men and women combined (RR=1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). From the sex-stratified subgroup analysis, the risk of meningioma was significant in men (RR=1.42; 95% CI: 1.16-1.74). Risk of meningioma in women did not remain significant (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.73-1.16). There was a high heterogeneity in the results (I 2 =58.4%, p=0.002). Sensitivity analyses showed stable results and there was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS Cigarette smoking is not associated with a significantly increased risk of meningioma in the whole population, but there is a positive association in men but not in women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco Induced DiseasesSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207