Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,023

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outdoor Particulate Matter Exposure and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Hamra, Ghassan B., Guha, Neela, Cohen, Aaron, Laden, Francine, Raaschou-Nielsen, Ole, Samet, Jonathan M., Vineis, Paolo, Forastiere, Francesco, Saldiva, Paulo, Yorifuji, Takashi, Loomis, Dana·2014·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This determination was based on the evidence regarding the relationship of PM2.5 and PM10 to lung cancer risk; however, the IARC evaluation did not include a quantitative summary of the evidence. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to provide a systematic review and quantitative summary of the evidence regarding the relationship between PM and lung cancer. METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses of studies examining the relationship of exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 with lung cancer incidence and mortality. In total, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria and provided the information necessary to estimate the change in lung cancer risk per 10-μg/m3 increase in exposure to PM. We used random-effects analyses to allow between-study variability to contribute to meta-estimates. RESULTS: The meta-relative risk for lung cancer associated with PM2.5 was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.14). The meta-relative risk of lung cancer associated with PM10 was similar, but less precise: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.17). Estimates were robust to restriction to studies that considered potential confounders, as well as subanalyses by exposure assessment method. Analyses by smoking status showed that lung cancer risk associated with PM2.5 was greatest for former smokers [1.44 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.22)], followed by never-smokers [1.18 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.39)], and then current smokers [1.06 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.15)]. In addition, meta-estimates for adenocarcinoma associated with PM2.5 and PM10 were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.83) and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.63), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of these analyses, and the decision of the IARC Working Group to classify PM and outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (Group 1), further justify efforts to reduce exposures to air pollutants that can arise from many sources.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp/1408092

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 1,023

Metadata

Authors
Hamra, G. B., Guha, N., Cohen, A., Laden, F., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Samet, J. M., Vineis, P., Forastiere, F., Saldiva, P., Yorifuji, T., & Loomis, D.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2014-09
Volume
122
Issue
9
Pages
906-911
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2159498276
Cited by
1,023
References
6
FWCI
7.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Outdoor Particulate Matter Exposure and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp/1408092
The paper
Hamra, G. B., Guha, N., Cohen, A., Laden, F., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Samet, J. M., Vineis, P., Forastiere, F., Saldiva, P., Yorifuji, T., & Loomis, D. (2014). Outdoor Particulate Matter Exposure and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp/1408092

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.