ReviewFrontiers in public health2024
Evaluation of biological markers for the risk assessment of carbon black in epidemiological studies.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have been suggested as being capable of promoting inflammation, a key component in the pathways associated with carcinogenesis, cardiovascular disease, and other conditions. As a result, the risk assessment of biological markers as early-stage indicators has the potential to improve translation from experimental toxicologic findings to identifying evidence in human studies. The study aims to review the possible early biological changes in workers exposed to carbon black (CB), followed by an evidentiary quality evaluation to determine the predictive value of the biological markers. Methods: We conducted a literature search to identify epidemiological studies that assessed biological markers that were involved in the inflammatory process at early stages among workers with exposure to CB. We reviewed the studies with specific reference to the study design, statistical analyses, findings, and limitations. Results: We identified five Chinese studies that investigated the potential impact of exposure to CB on inflammatory markers, bronchial wall thickening, genomic instability, and lung function impairment in CB production workers. Of the five Chinese studies, four were cross-sectional; another study reported results at two-time points over six years of follow-up. The authors of all five studies concluded positive relationships between exposure and the inflammatory cytokine profiles. The weak to very weak correlations between biomarkers and early-stage endpoints were reported. Conclusion: Most inflammatory markers failed to satisfy the proposed evidentiary quality criteria. The significance of the results of the reviewed studies is limited by the cross-sectional study design, inconsistency in results, uncertain clinical relevance, and high occupational exposures. Based on this review, the risk assessment relying on inflammatory markers does not seem appropriate at this time. Nevertheless, the novel research warrants further exploration in assessing exposure to ENMs and corresponding potential health risks in occupational settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.