8234966 Occupational exposure to chromium(VI) and five selected cancer sites: systematic review and meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is a human carcinogen. It is unclear whether Cr(VI) can cause cancer of the small intestine, oral cavity, pancreas, prostate and urinary bladder. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies on occupational exposure to Cr(VI) and incidence and mortality of these cancer sites. Material and Methods A comprehensive review of human studies on Cr(VI) and cancer was performed in Embase and Scopus. 131 potentially relevant epidemiological studies were identified. Study quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. 29 publications including 81 observations for meta-analyses were based on cohort or case-control studies with exposure assessment of sufficient quality. Site-specific random-effects meta-analyses were done separately for incidence and mortality. Sensitivity analyses focused on the studies with the highest quality scores. Results No indications for an association between Cr(VI) exposure and oral or small intestine cancer were found. Incidence of pancreatic cancer was not associated with Cr(VI) exposure (meta-RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.85-1.28) while for specific mortality RR was 1.41 (0.96-2.08) with moderate heterogeneity (I2=41%) and an asymmetric funnel plot (Egger’s test; p=0.002). For incidence of prostate cancer meta RR was 1.16 (0.99-1.37) while the RR for mortality was 1.03 (0.84-1.25). For bladder cancer, RR was 1.04 (0.91-1.20) for incidence and 1.76 (1.20-2.60) for mortality. Conclusion There are indications that pancreas, prostate and bladder cancer may be related to occupational exposure to Cr(VI) compounds, but in the meta-analyses sufficient evidence was not provided. For oral cavity and small intestine cancer, reported indications from animal models were not supported by human studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".