The association between cadmium exposure and lung cancer risk: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cadmium (Cd), a toxic heavy metal, is classified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Epidemiological studies suggested a potential link between cadmium exposure and lung cancer risk, but evidence has remained inconsistent, particularly regarding differences between occupational and general populations. This protocol will outline a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the association between cadmium exposure (via blood, urine, hair, or environmental samples) and lung cancer risk. METHODS: This study protocol will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane databases will identify observational studies published from inception to December 2024. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data, and assess the quality of included using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We will harmonize data to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random-effects model is anticipated for high-heterogeneous results, while fixed-effects model will be adopted for low- heterogeneous results. Sub-group analyses (e.g., population type (general/occupational), geographic region, year of publication), sensitivity analyses, and assessments of publication bias (Egger's test, funnel plots) will be conducted to ensure the robustness and reliability of the findings. The analyses will be conducted via RevMan 5.3 and STATA 15 software. DISCUSSION: This protocol will guide the standard process of the systematic review, providing synthesized evidence on the short-, and long-term effect of cadmium on lung risk in general and occupational populations. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide synthesized evidence regarding cadmium exposure with lung cancer risk in both occupational and general populations. The evidence obtained in this study can inform the public and the policy-making bodies. REGISTER ON PROSPERO: CRD42024527248.
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 | 0.094 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.006 |
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".