MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405614650 · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.109216

The effect of occupational exposure to welding fumes on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer: A supplementary analysis of regular occupational exposure and of occasional occupational exposure based on the systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and Injury

2024· review· en· W4405614650 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie C. Momen, Marissa G. Baker, Tim Driscoll, Jian Li, Martha Sílvia Martinez-Silveira, Michelle C. Turner, Susana Viegas, Paul J. Villeneuve, Frank Pega

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment International · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersLancaster UniversityWorld Health OrganizationInternational Labour OrganisationAgencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el DesarrolloNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthBundesministerium für Gesundheit
KeywordsOccupational exposureMedicineLung cancerOccupational lung diseaseBronchusEnvironmental healthLungPathologyInternal medicineRespiratory disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are the producers of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified welding fumes as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). A previous systematic review and meta -analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates reported that there was “sufficient evidence of harmfulness” that compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of developing trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. It concluded that WHO/ILO Joint Estimates could be produced of the attributable burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. However, occupational exposure to welding fumes must be considered in greater detail, as there may be differences in risk between those with regular occupational exposure to welding fumes and those with occasional occupational exposure, the latter of which has previously been estimated to be highly prevalent. Regular and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes have not previously been considered in a systematic review . Here, we present a supplementary analysis to our previous systematic review and meta -analysis, providing parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to regular and to occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes, to inform the development of WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of this burden of disease. Objectives We sought to systematically review and meta -analyse estimates of the effect of regular occupational exposure to welding fumes and of occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality). Data sources We developed and published a protocol for our previous systematic review, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and CISDOC, up until 27 May 2024. We also searched grey literature databases, internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria We included studies of working-age workers (≥15 years) in the formal and informal economy in any Member State of WHO and/or ILO but excluded studies of children (<15 years) and of unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials , cohort studies , case-control studies, and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of regular and/or occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence, incidence, and mortality). Study appraisal and synthesis methods At least two review authors independently: screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria, screened full texts of potentially eligible records, and extracted data from the included studies. We combined effect estimates using random-effects meta -analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide‘s tools and approaches adapted to the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We conducted subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Results Twenty-eight records from 19 studies (17 case control studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising over 2.4 million participants (unclear number of females, but N < 4388) and conducted in 17 countries in three WHO Regions (Region of the Americas, European Region, and Western Pacific Region). Across included studies, we judged risk of bias as generally probably low/low, but the risks of selection bias as probably high for several studies and of exposure assessment bias as high for one study. Our search identified no evidence on the outcome of having trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence). Compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, regular occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of developing trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 39% (RR 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–1.67, 15 studies, 29,785 participants, I 2 23%; high quality of evidence), and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of developing trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 16% (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.27, 16 studies, 32,838 participants, I 2 15%; moderate quality of evidence). Compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, regular occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 25% (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.88–1.77, 1 study, 3583 participants; low quality of evidence), and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 31% (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.07–1.59, 1 study, 4215 participants, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO Region and sex. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses’ findings. Conclusions Overall, for incidence of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as “sufficient evidence of harmfulness” for both regular and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes; a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias, and confounding can be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For mortality of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as “inadequate evidence of harmfulness”; the available evidence is insufficient to assess effects of the exposure. The summary effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates to produce estimates of proportions of the working-age population with regular and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes and the attributable burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.048
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment InternationalSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207