Meta-Analysis of Body Concentration of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate Cancer (PCa) is the second most common hormone-sensitive neoplasm among men and the fifth cause of death due to malignancy in developed countries. Moreover, studies have shown the links between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and hormone-related cancers such as prostate cancer. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the potential relationship between the PCBs and developing PCa. In this meta-analysis study, the relevant databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus were studied for English research. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was applied to evaluate the quality of the selected publications. The GRADE method was used to assess the risk of bias studies. After reviewing the relevant studies, a cohort and seven case–control studies entered the meta-analysis. These articles were published during 2003–2021 with 2989 participants and 1212 PCa cases. The heterogeneity among the studies was significant ( p = 0.001, I 2 = 70.61). Using a random-effects model, the association between the serum and plasma levels of PCBs and the risk of PCa was not shown to be significant (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.90–1.39). The results of Egger’s test showed no trace of publication bias in the studies (P of bias = 0.573). This systematic review and meta-analysis was presented based on relatively strong evidence and has confirmed negatively significant associations between PCa risk and some PCBs congeners (PCB 44, 52, and 101). This study does not provide strong evidence that total PCB exposure is a risk factor for PCa development in humans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.011 | 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".