ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2015
IARC monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
60 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic biomarkers and individual susceptibility in healthcare workers exposed to waste anesthetic gases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Chemical Components in the Breast Milk of Passive Smoker Women: A Systematic Review and Health Risks Assessment.Biological trace element research · 2025Pooled it
- Ten years of using key characteristics of human carcinogens to organize and evaluate mechanistic evidence in IARC Monographs on the identification of carcinogenic hazards to humans: Patterns and associations.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024Pooled it
- Cancer Effects of Low to Moderate Doses of Ionizing Radiation in Young People with Cancer-Predisposing Conditions: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Inverse association between Helicobacter pylori and inflammatory bowel disease: myth or fact?Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Pooled it
- Epigenetic alterations induced by genotoxic occupational and environmental human chemical carcinogens: A systematic literature review.Mutation research. Reviews in mutation researchPooled it
- Development of a Property-Guided HS-SPME-GC-MS Method for Broad-Range Qualitative Screening of Potentially Hazardous VOCs in Recycled Polypropylene.ACS polymers Au · 2026Article
- Attributable fraction and number of cancer cases attributed to occupational carcinogens in Iran in 2019.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Integrated Microbiological, Physicochemical, and Sensory Assessment of Shrimp Quality During Commercial Iced Storage: Implications for Shelf-Life Evaluation and Freshness Indicators.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- The GALENOS approach to triangulating evidence: a structured approach for integrating information from human and animal studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Occupational silica exposure drives systemic immune dysregulation and tumor microenvironment susceptibility: evidence from a real-world study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Article
- CarD-T: an automated pipeline for the nomination and analysis of potential human carcinogens.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- Health Risk Assessment of Dietary Chemical Exposures: A Comprehensive Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessment of biochar filter application in improving chromium stress tolerance and plant physiology in Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa) under a flow-through water setup.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
- Health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs) in grilled meats in Zahedan city of Iran.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- An evolved interpretation of Austin Bradford Hill's causal viewpoints and their influence on epidemiologic methods.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Fraction of cancer incidence and mortality attributable to dietary factors in Korea from 2015 to 2030.Epidemiology and health · 2025Article
- Update on Occupational Cancer for Better Cancer Prevention and Control.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
124 authors at 20 institutions in 17 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.
objectivesThe authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. DISCUSSION: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.
conclusionsThe IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.