Mesothelioma among seamen: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Navy personnel and seafarers live and work 24 h per day in the shipboard environment and they are exposed to asbestos fibers released into the confined spaces aboard ships. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the mesothelioma risk of seamen working aboard ships, either commercial or naval vessels, as compared to that of the general population. METHODS: We carried out a literature search in MEDLINE through PubMed and EMBASE, from inception to 31 December 2021, of all studies on seamen working aboard ships, either commercial or naval vessels, characterized by exposure to asbestos and providing mesothelioma risk estimates. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies included. The pooled standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was computed across eligible studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO and reporting followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies published from 1990 to 2020 were considered eligible and included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All the included studies were of good quality, with a median score of seven out of nine. Overall, there were 235 mesothelioma cases/deaths in the included studies versus 115.6 expected, with a pooled SMR of 2.11 (95% confidence intervals, 1.70-2.62), in the absence of a significant between-study heterogeneity ( I2 = 39%, P = 0.11). CONCLUSION: A more than double excess risk for mesothelioma among seamen working aboard ships emerged from our meta-analysis.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".