Organic solvent exposure for the chronic kidney disease: updated systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies on the relationship between organic solvent exposure and chronic kidney disease (CKD) have presented inconsistent results. Definition of CKD has changed in 2012, and other cohort studies have been newly published. Therefore, this study aimed to newly confirm the relationship between organic solvent exposure and CKD through an updated meta-analysis including additional studies. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The search was conducted on January 2, 2023 using Embase and MEDLINE databases. Case-control and cohort studies on the relationship between organic solvent exposure and CKD were included. Two authors independently reviewed full-text. Results: Of 5,109 studies identified, a total of 19 studies (control studies: 14 and cohort studies: 5) were finally included in our meta-analysis. The pooled risk of CKD in the organic solvent exposed group was 2.44 (1.72-3.47). The risk of a low-level exposure group was 1.07 (0.77-1.49). The total risk of a high-level exposure group was 2.44 (1.19-5.00). The risk of glomerulonephritis was 2.69 (1.18-6.11). The risk was 1.46 (1.29-1.64) for worsening of renal function. The pooled risk was 2.41 (1.57-3.70) in case-control studies and 2.51 (1.34-4.70) in cohort studies. The risk of subgroup classified as 'good' by the Newcastle Ottawa scale score was 1.93 (1.43-2.61). Conclusions: This study confirmed that the risk of CKD was significantly increased in workers exposed to mixed organic solvents. Further research is needed to determine the exact mechanisms and thresholds. Surveillance for kidney damage in the group exposed to high levels of organic solvents should be conducted. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022306521.
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 | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.062 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".