Exposure to pesticides and pediatric Wilms’ tumor. A meta-analysis on pre-conception and pregnancy parental exposure with an IARC/WHO commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are hereditary types of nephroblastoma or Wilms' tumor associated with exposure of the germ cells of either parent to harmful environmental factors. Some studies have examined the exposure of compounds used pesticides and herbicides as a risk factor for Wilms' tumor. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out on case-control studies to establish the potential link between exposure to these organic molecules and Wilms' tumor occurrence in children rigorously. We examined the monographs on some organo-phosphate insecticides and herbicides issued by the International Association for the Research on Cancer (IARC) under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO). PUBMED, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar studies (1960-2021) were identified and systematically reviewed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Subgroup analyses were conducted after stratification for occupational versus residential exposure and before birth (prenatal) vs. after birth (postnatal) exposure. In addition, we revised the monographs on chemical compounds issued recently by the IARC/WHO. RESULTS: Our findings seem to consolidate that parental pesticide exposure during the preconception or pregnancy period is correlated with an increased occurrence risk for Wilms' tumor. We confirm the validity of the WHO essays on certain organophosphate herbicides and insecticides, which support these compounds, may be highly relevant in future cancer prevention policies. CONCLUSION: Parental exposure to pesticides, particularly in household settings, is poorly emphasized in our society. There is a strong association between these organophosphate compounds and pediatric cancer. Public health agencies may need to take stronger action than in the past.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".