The association between occupational silica exposure and leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respirable crystalline silica is a proven lung carcinogen, but there is limited information of the carcinogenic effects of silica on non-respiratory organs. We aimed to systematically review cohort studies and conduct a meta-analysis to explore the relationship between occupational exposure to silica and the risk of leukemia development. We performed an exhaustive search across three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) to identify pertinent cohort studies published since 1987. After removing duplicates and excluding irrelevant studies, 22 studies were included in our analysis. We utilized fixed-effects models in the implementation of our meta-analysis. The combined relative risk of leukemia associated with occupational silica exposure was determined to be 1.11 (95% CI: 0.93-1.33), with no significant differences observed across various industries, geographic regions, exposure periods, or study quality estimates. The present study based on cohort studies provide no evidence that occupational exposure to silica does increase the risk of leukemia.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".