MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212292341 · doi:10.1136/oemed-2021-107498

Cancer and mortality in coal mine workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3212292341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheikh Mohammad Alif, Malcolm Sim, Clarence Ho, Deborah C. Glass

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational and Environmental Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsPneumoconiosisMeta-analysisMedicineLung cancerCancerEnvironmental healthCoal miningCoalDemographyInternal medicinePathologyWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coal mine workers are exposed to a number of workplace hazards which may increase the risk of cancer and mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate cancer and mortality in coal mine workers We searched in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases using keywords and text words related to coal mines, cancer and mortality and identified 36 full-text articles using predefined inclusion criteria. Each study's quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We performed random-effect meta-analyses including 21 of the identified articles evaluating cancer and/or mortality of coal mine workers. The meta-analysis showed an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SMR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30) and mortality from non-malignant respiratory disease (NMRD) (3.59, 95% CI 3.00 to 4.30) in cohorts with coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP). We found a somewhat increased risk of stomach cancer (1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.35) and of mortality from NMRD (1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61) in the cohorts of coal miners with unknown CWP status. The meta-analysis also showed a decreased risk of prostate cancer and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality among coal miners. This may be a result of the healthy worker effect and possible lower smoking rates, and perhaps also reflect the physically active nature of many jobs in coal mines. The meta-analysis for lung cancer did not show increased risk in coal miners with CWP (1.49, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.18) or for coal miners of unknown CWP status (1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18). Lower smoking rates in coal mine workers could explain why case-control studies where smoking was controlled for showed higher risks for lung cancer than were seen in cohort studies. Coal mine workers are at increased risk of mortality from NMRD but decreased risk of prostate cancer and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality. Studies of coal mine workers need long-term follow-up to identify increased mortality and cancer incidence.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207