MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407937563 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxaf006

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of man-made vitreous fibres and respiratory health outcomes

2025· review· en· W4407937563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damien McElvenny, Ireny Iskandar, Sarah Daniels, Matthew Gittins, Martie van Tongeren

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineCohort studySystematic reviewCohortMeta-analysisEpidemiologyGlass woolMEDLINEEnvironmental healthInternal medicineBiologyChemistryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.294
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207