MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117666488 · doi:10.1186/s12302-025-01319-y

Asbestos burden in lung tissue from the general population: a systematic review

2025· article· en· W7117666488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Silvia Damiana Visoná, Giovanni Cecchetto, E. Taioli

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Sciences Europe · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsbestosChrysotileTremoliteMesotheliomaAsbestosisLungPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asbestos, a group of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals, is known for its fire-resistant and insulating properties but is also recognized as a cause of several diseases, including mesothelioma and lung cancer. Lung content analysis using electron microscopy is considered the most reliable method for assessing past asbestos exposure, especially in medico-legal settings. However, there is no universally accepted reference value to distinguish between background and risk-associated exposure levels. This systematic review evaluates the quantification and time trends of asbestos lung burden in the general population over recent decades. Twenty studies published between 1980 and 2023 were included, analysing asbestos lung content from autopsies performed between 1967 and 2023 on 890 individuals from diverse geographic regions. All studies detected asbestos in lung tissue, with concentrations ranging from 3187 to 7,310,000 fibres per gram of dry weight (ff/gdw). Most studies reported values above thresholds often cited for background exposure. No clear trend in asbestos concentration or fibre type was observed over time. Recent studies from Italy, conducted after the national asbestos ban, showed variable results: one reported concentrations above 100,000 ff/gdw in Milan, while another found much lower levels elsewhere in Northern Italy. Amphiboles such as tremolite may contaminate chrysotile, and their presence in lung tissue could reflect either industrial use or other environmental sources. Amphiboles have lower solubility in the respiratory tract, whereas chrysotile may dissolve more rapidly. Data comparability across studies and laboratories is limited due to methodological differences, as previously noted in the literature. This review summarizes studies conducted in US, Canada, Japan, Korea and Europe, based on autopsies from individuals without occupational asbestos exposure. Asbestos is consistently found in lung tissue from the general population, with no evident decline in concentrations over the past five decades. The persistence of non-commercial amphiboles, even after regulatory bans, highlights ongoing environmental exposure and complicates disease attribution in medico-legal contexts. The current literature is limited and methodologically heterogeneous, underscoring the need for standardized laboratory methods and updated reference values. However, surveillance of asbestos-related diseases, especially mesothelioma, requires detailed exposure assessment, including patient interviews, as mineral particle levels alone may not capture individual susceptibility or exposure history.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Sciences EuropeSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207