A meta-analysis of active smoking and risk of meningioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 [12][13][14] , women 9,10,14-17 , or both 18,19 ) and meningioma.Recently, a meta-analysis by Fan et al. 20 concluded that smoking was not associated with a significantly ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Cigarette smoking has been hypothesized to be a risk factor for meningioma.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 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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.076 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".