Occupational-Related Exposure to Diesel Exhaust and Kidney Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between diesel exhaust and cancer other than the lung is not well established. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between diesel and kidney cancer in workers. METHODS: Two trained researchers conducted a systematic review to identify cohort studies examining the relationship between occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and the risk of cancer other than lung cancer. Of the 43 retained studies, 15 reported information on kidney cancer. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for ever-exposure to diesel exhaust. Summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the association between diesel exhaust exposure and kidney cancer. RESULTS: Overall, the RR of kidney cancer was 1.08 (95% CI=1.01-1.15, heterogeneity p=0.1, I2=28.6%). The summary RR was 1.08 for incidence (95% CI=1.01-1.16; I2=36.7%) and 1.09 for mortality (95% CI=0.92-1.30, I2=14.5%), p of heterogeneity=0.914. The summary RR of European studies was 1.08 (95% CI=1.00-1.16, I2=37.8 %), that of USA/Canada studies was 1.10 (95% CI=0.94-1.29, I2=8.5%), p of heterogeneity=0.837. Publication bias was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: Workers exposed to diesel exhaust may experience an increased risk of developing kidney cancer, although the evidence is not entirely consistent, and residual confounding cannot be excluded.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".