Systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of man-made vitreous fibres and respiratory health outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The generic term man-made vitreous fibres (MMVFs) also known as man-made mineral fibres (MMMFs) denotes non-crystalline, fibrous inorganic material manufactured primarily from glass, rock, minerals, slag, glass, and processed inorganic oxides. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified rock (stone) wool, glass wool, and continuous glass filament as Group 3 (not classifiable for carcinogenicity). This study contains an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of respiratory health outcomes and MMMFs. METHODS: Cinahl, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and OpenGrey were searched for epidemiological studies of occupational MMMF exposure and malignant and non-malignant respiratory diseases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adopted for reporting. Meta-analyses were carried out separately for cohort and case-control studies. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review, with 19 of these (9 cohort; 10 case-control) providing risk estimates for the meta-analyses. Of the cohort studies, 3 were carried out in Sweden, 2 each in Canada and the United States, one in France, and one several European countries. The start of follow-up ranged from 1933 to 1975. The meta-RR for lung cancer from cohort studies (incidence or mortality) was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.32), for laryngeal cancer was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.78 to 1.37), and for non-malignant respiratory diseases (NMRD) mortality was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.66 to 1.22). Of the case-control studies, 9 examined lung cancer and one laryngeal cancer. Three of the lung cancer studies were carried out in France and one each in Germany, Russia, Canada, and China, with one in several European countries and one was a nested case-control study of several case cohorts from across the globe. The meta-OR for lung cancer from the case-control studies was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings broadly agree with a previously published meta-analysis of respiratory system cancers, in that they were similar in terms of magnitude of relative risk. However, overall, our results suggest that exposure to MMMFs is associated with a small, but statistically significantly elevated risk for lung cancer, but not for laryngeal cancer or NMRDs. Given the heterogeneity between studies, and the possibility of residual confounding, further work is required to determine if this association is causal.
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 | 0.019 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".