Occupational Exposure to Carcinogens and Occupational Epidemiological Cancer Studies in Iran: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The extent of exposure to occupational carcinogens is not well characterized in Iran, and little is known about the burden of occupational cancer. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe exposure to occupational carcinogens and occupational epidemiology studies in Iran. METHODS: Relevant studies up to January 2021 in Iran were identified through three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). RESULTS: Forty-nine publications from 2009 to 2020 (one cohort, 11 case-control, 34 exposure monitoring studies, and three cancer burden studies) were included. The exposure monitoring studies were conducted mainly in the petroleum industry, metal industry, manufacturing of electronics, manufacturing of plastics, construction industry, and service industry. A few of the case-control studies also reported increased risk of cancers in relation to work in those industries. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational cancer epidemiology in Iran is at an early stage. Both epidemiological and exposure monitoring studies are generally limited in size to provide robust evidence of occupational cancer risks. A coherent strategy to estimate the occupational cancer burden in Iran should start with conducting epidemiological studies along with systematic monitoring of occupational carcinogens for use in hazard control and research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".