Assessing the Global Impact of Ambient Air Pollution on Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aims to examine the association between exposure to major ambient air pollutants and the incidence and mortality of lung cancer and some nonlung cancers. METHODS This meta-analysis used PubMed and EMBASE databases to access published studies that met the eligibility criteria. Primary analysis investigated the association between exposure to air pollutants and cancer incidence and mortality. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software. RESULTS The meta-analysis included 61 studies, of which 53 were cohort studies and eight were case-control studies. Particulate matter 2.5 mm or less in diameter (PM2.5) was the exposure pollutant in half (55.5%), and lung cancer was the most frequently studied cancer in 59% of the studies. A pooled analysis of exposure reported in cohort and case-control studies and cancer incidence demonstrated a significant relationship (relative risk [RR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.05]; I2, 88.93%; P < .05). A significant association was observed between exposure to pollutants such as PM2.5 (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12]; I2, 68.52%) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.05]; I2, 73.52%) and lung cancer incidence. The relationship between exposure to the air pollutants and cancer mortality demonstrated a significant relationship (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.10]; I2, 94.77%; P < .001). Among the four pollutants, PM2.5 (RR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.22]; I2, 95.33%) and NO2 (RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.08]; I2, 89.98%) were associated with lung cancer mortality. CONCLUSION The study confirms the association between air pollution exposure and lung cancer incidence and mortality. The meta-analysis results could contribute to community cancer prevention and diagnosis and help inform stakeholders and policymakers in decision making.
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 | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.065 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".