ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Use of updated mortality study of ethylene oxide manufacturing workers to inform cancer risk assessment.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation of Ethylene Oxide Genotoxicity Dose-Response to Inform Cancer Risk Assessment.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Use of updated mortality study of ethylene oxide manufacturing workers to inform cancer risk assessment.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The two most recent cancer risk assessments for ethylene oxide (EO) are based on the same epidemiologic study of sterilant workers conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but result in cancer risk estimates with three orders of magnitude difference, despite relying on the same assumption of a default linear (non-threshold) extrapolation. A major reason for the difference is the use of different exposure-response models (i.e., the standard Cox proportional hazards [CPH] versus a two-piece linear spline model with a steep initial slope) to derive the inhalation unit risk. The purpose of this research is to utilize analysis of a 10-year update of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) EO 2053 chemical worker cohort to examine the epidemiological evidence for the shape of the exposure-response model for EO. This updated UCC study provides an external dataset that is informative given high average cumulative exposures (67 ppm-years), extensive average follow-up of over 40 years, and number of male lymphoid cancer deaths (25) comparable to that observed in the NIOSH cohort. This independent analysis of a different cohort using continuous dose response modeling with cumulative or log cumulative exposure metrics provides no empirical support for a steep curve at low exposures. Furthermore, analyses of the categorical odds ratio estimates across different updates of the UCC cohort and for each sex in the NIOSH cohort provide further epidemiological evidence that the standard CPH model more plausibly describes the relationship between EO exposures and lymphoid mortality for both cohorts.
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.