Abstract 7393: Occupational benzene exposure and solid cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Benzene, an aromatic hydrocarbon, is an established cause of leukemia. The association between benzene exposure and solid cancers is currently being investigated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between occupational benzene exposure and the incidence and mortality of breast, female genital, kidney, bladder, prostate, testis, esophageal, gastric, colorectal, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, lung, head and neck, brain, and skin cancers. We included cohort and case-control studies referenced in the 2018 IARC Monograph on benzene and also reviewed studies published up to April 2024 in PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE. We evaluated the quality of the studies using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used forest plots of relative risk (RR) to present and analyze the data and employed a random-effects model to address heterogeneity between studies. Stratified analyses were performed to explore potential effect modification. Our meta-analysis included 80 independent studies, and the findings are summarized in Table 1. The results of our study indicated an association between overall occupational benzene exposure and breast, kidney, colorectal, head and neck, and brain cancer and a dose-effect association between benzene exposure and lung, hepatobiliary, bladder cancer. In addition, non-significant RR>1.25 were derived for ovarian and gallbladder cancer. Additional well-designed studies, incorporating detailed exposure assessment and control for potential confounders, are required to clarify these relationships. It is essential to implement occupational safety measures, such as proper ventilation, personal protective equipment, and workplace monitoring, to minimize exposure and safeguard workers in industries where benzene is present. Citation Format: Paolo Boffetta, Monireh Sadat Seyyedsalehi. Occupational benzene exposure and solid cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 7393.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".