ArticleScientific reports2024
Cross-sectional analysis of dyslipidemia risk in coal mine workers: from epidemiology to animal models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The temporal characteristics of pharyngeal microbiota and plasma lipidomics by silica exposure in coal miner.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
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
objectiveTo investigate the association between coal dust exposure and the occurrence of dyslipidemia in coal mine workers, and identify relevant risk factors. Methods: We selected a population who underwent occupational health examinations at Huainan Yangguang Xinkang Hospital from March 2020 to July 2022. Participants were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of dyslipidemia, and their baseline information was collected, including records of coal dust exposure. We employed single-factor analysis to identify risk factors for dyslipidemia and adjusted for confounding factors in the adjusted models. Additionally, we explored the effects in different populations using stratified analysis, smooth curve fitting, and propensity score matching. Finally, we confirmed the causal relationship between coal dust exposure and dyslipidemia by examining tissue sections and lipid-related indicators in a mouse model of coal dust exposure. Results A total of 5,657 workers were included in the study, among whom 924 individuals had dyslipidemia and 4,743 individuals did not have dyslipidemia. The results of the single-factor analysis revealed that dust exposure, age, BMI, blood pressure, and smoking were statistically significant risk factors for dyslipidemia (p < 0.05). Additionally, the three multivariate models, adjusted for different confounders, consistently showed a significant increase in the risk of dyslipidemia associated with coal dust exposure (Model 1: OR, 1.869; Model 2: OR, 1.863; Model 3: OR, 2.033). After conducting stratified analysis, this positive correlation remained significant. Furthermore, propensity score matching analysis revealed that with increasing years of work, the risk of dyslipidemia gradually increased, reaching 50% at 11 years. In the mouse model of coal dust exposure, significant coal dust deposition was observed in the lungs and livers of the mice, accompanied by elevated levels of total cholesterol (TC), alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Conclusion Exposure to coal dust significantly increases the risk of developing dyslipidemia, and this positive correlation exists in different populations, particularly with increasing years of work, resulting in a higher risk.
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.