Editorial Study: Contrasting epidemiological perspectives on environmental risk factors for breast cancer in Africa and Western regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as pesticides, plasticisers and food-related compounds are ubiquitous environmental pollutants linked to increased breast cancer risk. While substantial evidence exists from Western settings, limited data address these associations in African populations, where exposure patterns and regulatory frameworks differ markedly. Objectives. To synthesise global epidemiological evidence on EDC exposure and breast cancer, with a focus on identifying disparities between African and Western regions. Methods. A systematic review of PubMed (MEDLINE) was conducted by Mahasa et al. from 30 November 2024 to 14 July 2025, following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search used keywords including ‘endocrine disruptors’, ‘breast cancer’, ‘climate change’, ‘air pollution’, ‘water pollution’, ‘global warming’ and ‘greenhouse effect’, and included both case-control and cohort studies. Results. The search identified 172 eligible studies. Most were from Western countries and used biomarker-based exposure assessments. Most studies were conducted in Western countries, mainly the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, by authors such as Wolff, Brody, Stellman, Eskenazi and Rusiecki, who used biomarker-based methods to assess exposure to key endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These Western studies consistently linked higher levels of DDT/DDE, PCBs and certain phthalates to increased breast cancer risk. In contrast, there were only a few studies from African countries such as South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt, despite higher potential exposure through agriculture and food systems, and these were limited in scale and methodological depth, providing less conclusive evidence. Conclusion. Regional gaps in data limit our understanding of EDC-related breast cancer risk in Africa. Targeted research and region- specific policies are urgently needed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".