MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967268810 · doi:10.5061/dryad.5tb2rbp0x

Occupational exposure to silica and risk of heart disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2019· dataset· en· W6967268810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Center for Disease Control and PreventionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHeart diseaseCohort studyCohortRelative riskHeart failureRisk assessmentRetrospective cohort studyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To search for evidence of the relationship between occupational silica exposure and heart disease. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Background Growing evidences suggest a connection between occupational silica exposure and heart disease; however, the link between them is less clear. Data sources PubMed, ScienceDirect, Springer and EMBASE were searched for articles published between 1 January 1995 and 20 June 2019. Articles that investigated the effects of occupational silica exposure on heart disease risk were considered. Study selection We included cohort studies, including prospective, retrospective and retro-prospective studies. Data extraction and synthesis We extracted data by using a piloted data collection form and conducted random-effects meta-analysis and exposure-response analyses. The meta-relative risk (meta-RR), a measure of the average ratio of heart disease rates for those with and without silica exposure, was used as an inverse variance-weighted average of relative risks from the individual studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality assessment Scale about cohort studies was used for study quality assessment. Outcome measure We calculated heart disease risks of pulmonary heart disease, ischaemic heart disease and other heart diseases. Results Twenty cohort articles were included. Results suggest a significant increase of overall heart disease risk (meta-RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.13). Stronger evidences of association with pulmonary heart disease were found through both categories of heart disease risk estimate (meta-RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.08, 1.43) and exposure-response analyses (meta-RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.19, 1.62). Moreover, our subgroup analyses revealed that the statistical heterogeneity among studies could be attributed mainly to the diversities of reference group, occupation and study quality score. Conclusions Silica-exposed workers have increased risk of overall heart disease, especially pulmonary heart disease. While further research is needed to better clarify the relationship between occupational silica exposure and ischaemic heart disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207