O-253 Occupational asbestos exposure and gastrointestinal cancers: systematic review and meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> To summarize the epidemiological evidence on occupational asbestos exposure and the risk of esophageal, stomach and colorectal cancer. <h3>Methods</h3> The search strategy was developed by investigators with occupational hygiene, exposure assessment, cancer epidemiology, and systematic review expertise; and applied to MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus databases with no limits on publication year, country/region or language. Studies that reported relevant effect estimates (e.g., ORs, HRs, SIRs, and SMRs, considered equivalent to RRs) were eligible upon independent review and consensus by two authors. Results are presented in forest plots with corresponding meta-relative risk (mRR) estimates generated from random effects models to account for study heterogeneity. <h3>Results</h3> The systematic review included 193 cohort (80%) and case-control (20%) studies. After the selection of preferred effect estimates as the most informative, 57 studies contributed unique effect estimates to meta-analyses for esophageal cancer; 100 for stomach cancer; and 88 for colorectal cancer. There were elevated mRRs for esophageal [1.17 [95% CI 1.07–1.29]], stomach [1.13 [1.06–1.21]] and colorectal [1.17 [1.09–1.26]] cancers associated with ever versus never occupational asbestos exposure. Unexplained heterogeneity was reduced, and the strength of association increased, in the analyses of studies with better exposure assessment and increased confidence of high asbestos exposures, including among workers in the highest versus lowest exposure-response categories [e.g., mRR=1.31 [1.10–1.57] for stomach cancer]; among workers with a history of significant occupational exposure (e.g., mRR=1.68 [1.19–2.36] for esophageal cancer among insulators/insulating manufacturing workers]; and among workers in cohorts with a two-fold or greater increased risk of asbestos-related lung cancer [e.g., mRR=1.51 [1.37–1.66] for colorectal cancer]. Sensitivity analyses indicate minimal influence from any single study on meta-estimates or from publication bias. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The evidence synthesis supports a causal link between occupational asbestos exposure and esophageal, stomach and colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".