Association Between the Frequent Use of Perineal Talcum Powder Products and Ovarian Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Risk of ovarian cancer in women with frequent perineal talcum powder product is not well understood. Prior systematic reviews focused on ever use. The purpose of this study is to estimate the association between frequent (at least 2 times per week) perineal talcum powder use and ovarian cancer. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines. Study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020172720). Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from their inception to August 2, 2021. Case-control and cohort studies were included if they reported frequent perineal talcum powder use and an adjusted odds ratio or hazard ratio for ovarian cancer. Review for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment (using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [NOS]) were performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were generated from the random effects model. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2 statistic. Funnel plot and Eger’s test were performed to assess publication bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed for testing the robustness of the overall findings. Results Initial database searches returned 761 unique citations and after review, eleven studies describing 66,876 patients, and 6542 cancers were included (Cohen’s κ = 0.88). Publication quality was high (median NOS = 8, range: 4 to 9). Frequent talcum powder use was associated with an elevated risk of ovarian cancer (adjusted pooled summary odds ratio 1.47 (95% CI 1.31, 1.65, P<0.0001). There was no evidence of bias and low heterogeneity (I2= 24%, P=0.22). There was no meaningful difference limiting analysis to publications with a NOS quality score of 8 or 9 or limiting studies based on study design. Conclusions This review suggests an increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with frequent perineal powder exposure of 31–65%.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".