The Carcinogenic Effects of Formaldehyde Occupational Exposure: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Formaldehyde, classified as a carcinogen in 2004, as of today is widely used in many work activities. From its classification, further studies were performed to evaluate its carcinogenicity. The aim of the systematic review is to update the evidence on occupational exposure to formaldehyde and cancer onset. METHODS: The review, in accordance with the PRISMA statement, includes articles in English reporting original results of studies conducted on workers exposed to formaldehyde, considering all types of cancer, published from 1 January 2000 to 30 July 2021 and selected from the Pubmed and Scopus databases. The studies' quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 21 articles were included, conducted in different European, American, and Asian countries. The most investigated occupational areas are those characterized by a deliberate use of formaldehyde. Some studies evaluated all types of cancer, whereas others focused on specific sites such as thyroid and respiratory, lymphohematopoietic, or central nervous systems. The results showed weak associations with lung cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, leukemia, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the need for further original studies carried out on representative samples of workers exposed to measured levels of FA. These studies should be designed to reduce the bias due to co-exposure to other carcinogens.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".