ReviewOccupational and environmental medicine2024
Critical reviews of exposure assessment in carcinogenic hazard identification: the IARC
Review in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and evaluation of an independently generated transgenic mouse model carrying mutated human HRAS genes for short-term carcinogenicity assessment.Transgenic research · 2026Article
- Giant Atypical Hepatocellular Adenoma of Unknown Etiology in a Young Male: A Case Report.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- Establishing environmental causes of childhood cancer: a view from the IARC Monographs.UCL open. Environment · 2026Article
- Integrating chemical-specific information with general approaches to assessing exposure measurement bias in systematic reviews.Environment international · 2025Article
- Global, regional, and national disease burden of pneumoconiosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tracheal-bronchus-and-lung cancer, and asthma attributable to occupational risks, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- HMGB1 derived from lung epithelial cells after cobalt nanoparticle exposure promotes the activation of lung fibroblasts.Nanotoxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo summarise the rationale, workflow and recommendations for the conduct of exposure assessment critiques in key human studies evaluated for International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
methodsApproaches to evaluating exposure assessment quality in human cancer and mechanistic studies were reviewed according to the precepts outlined in the IARC
resultsThe case studies of night shift work (volume 124) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (volume 130) used a common approach, tailored to the agents' specific exposure scenarios, to evaluate exposure assessment quality. Based on the experiences of IARC Working Groups to date, the implementation of exposure assessment critique requires the need for agent-specific knowledge, consideration of the validity of time-varying exposure metrics related to duration and intensity, and transparent, concise reviews that prioritise the most important strengths and limitations of exposure assessment methods used in human studies.
conclusionsExposure assessment has not historically been a fully appreciated component for evaluating the quality of epidemiological studies in cancer hazard identification. Exposure assessment critique in key human cancer and mechanistic studies is now an integral part of IARC
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.