Original Article(s)
Vol. 14 (2026)
Micro(nano)plastics and cancer link hypothesis: applying the Bayesian assessment of research causality framework for transparent evidence integration in public health
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 7 April 2026
122
Views
92
Downloads
Authors
Background: Micro(nano)plastics (MNPs) are pervasive environmental contaminants found in oceans, soils, air, food, and human tissues. Their ubiquity coincides with rising cancer incidence, yet evidence remains fragmented across toxicological, mechanistic, and epidemiological domains, limiting causal inference. Traditional approaches such as the Bradford Hill criteria and qualitative Weight-of-Evidence (WoE) provide useful guidance but lack probabilistic rigor for modern risk assessment.
Materials and Methods: this paper introduces the Bayesian Assessment of Research Causality (BARC) framework as a methodological advance in risk analysis. BARC integrates diverse evidence streams into a transparent, quantitative probability of causation. Combined with WoE, it preserves interpretive breadth while adding the precision and reproducibility of Bayesian inference. The framework can be implemented through scalable tiers: simplified Bayes factor combination (Appendix A), hierarchical modeling with shared pathways (Appendix B), and full measurement-error-corrected models. Artificial intelligence further strengthens BARC by enabling automated evidence extraction, dynamic model updating, and polymer-specific sub-modeling.
Results: applied to the emerging MNPs-cancer link, BARC illustrates how structured probabilistic reasoning can guide preventive and regulatory action before epidemiologic certainty is reached. Conclusions: more broadly, BARC offers a flexible, transparent framework for environmental health risk assessment and evidence-based public health policy.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Citations
1. Ziani K, Ioniță-Mîndrican CB, Mititelu M, et al. Microplastics: a real global threat for environment and food safety: a state of the art review. Nutrients 2023;15:617.
2. Dzierżyński E, Gawlik PJ, Puźniak D, et al. Microplastics in the human body: exposure, detection, and risk of carcinogenesis: a state-of-the-art review. Cancers 2024;16:3703.
3. Kumar N, Lamba M, Pachar AK, et al. Microplastics - a growing concern as carcinogens in cancer etiology: emphasis on biochemical and molecular mechanisms. Cell Biochem Biophys 2024;82:3109-21.
4. Kadac-Czapska K, Ośko J, Knez E, Grembecka M. Microplastics and oxidative stress-current problems and prospects. Antioxidants (Basel) 2024;13:579.
5. Caputi S, Diomede F, Lanuti P, et al. Microplastics affect the inflammation pathway in human gingival fibroblasts: a study in the Adriatic Sea. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:7782.
6. Santovito A, Lambertini M, Nota A. In vitro and in vivo genotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics: evaluation of a possible synergistic action with bisphenol A. J Xenobiot 2024;14:1415-31.
7. Matos DM, Ramos JA, Brandão ALC, et al. Microplastics ingestion and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by breeding seabirds in the east tropical Atlantic: associations with trophic and foraging proxies (δ15N and δ13C). Sci Total Environ 2024;912:168664.
8. Wan MLY, Co VA, El-Nezami H. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and breast cancer: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2022;62:6549-76.
9. Lacouture A, Lafront C, Peillex C, et al. Impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on prostate function and cancer. Environ Res 2022;204:112085.
10. Dumitrascu MC, Mares C, Petca RC, et al. Carcinogenic effects of bisphenol A in breast and ovarian cancers. Oncol Lett 2020;20:282.
11. Yang W, Jannatun N, Zeng Y, et al. Impacts of microplastics on immunity. Front Toxicol 2022;4:956885.
12. Schell T, Rico A, Cherta L, et al. Influence of microplastics on the bioconcentration of organic contaminants in fish: is the "trojan horse" effect a matter of concern? Environ Pollut 2022;306:119473.
13. Kumar N, Pachar AK, Singh JK, et al. Investigating the hypothesis role of the hidden poison microplastics in lymphoma development. Discov Environ 2025;3:73.
14. Shimonovich M, Pearce A, Thomson H, et al. Assessing causality in epidemiology: revisiting Bradford Hill to incorporate developments in causal thinking. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:873-87.
15. Järvholm B, Burdorf A. Asbestos and disease - a public health success story? Scand J Work Environ Health 2024;50:53-60.
16. Berthold TA, McCrary A, deVilleneuve S, Schramm M. Let's talk about PFAS: inconsistent public awareness about PFAS and its sources in the United States. PLoS One 2023;18:e0294134.
17. Cox LA Jr. Modernizing the Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causal relationships in observational data. Crit Rev Toxicol 2018;48:682-712.
18. Rosenkranz HS, Mitchell CS, Klopman G. Artificial intelligence and Bayesian decision theory in the prediction of chemical carcinogens. Mutat Res 1985;150:1-11.
19. Suarez-Torres JD, Orozco CA, Ciangherotti CE. Applying Bayesian forecasting to predictive toxicology: the probability of innate carcinogenicity to humans of colorants synthesized from benzidine. Toxicol Lett 2021;351:111-34.
20. Zhang XM, Li WL, Xue W, et al. Effects of soil microplastic heterogeneity on plant growth vary with species and microplastic types. Sci Total Environ 2024;952:175940.
21. Stefanova NA, Sotnikova YS, Osechkova AE, et al. Invisible but insidious effects of microplastics. Molecules 2024;29:5776.
22. Chen Y, Zhang Z, Ji K, et al. Role of microplastics in the tumor microenvironment (Review). Oncol Lett 2025;29:193.
23. Cho YM, Choi KH. The current status of studies of human exposure assessment of microplastics and their health effects: a rapid systematic review. Environ Anal Health Toxicol 2021;36:e2021004-0.
24. Bucci K, Tulio M, Rochman CM. What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ecol Appl 2020;30:e02044.
25. Sellke T, Bayarri MJ, Berger JO. Calibration of p-values for testing precise null hypotheses. Am Stat 2001;55:62-71.
26. Vainio H, Wilbourn J. Identification of carcinogens within the IARC monograph program. Scand J Work Environ Health 1992;18:64-73.
27. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Washington, DC: US EPA; 2005. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-carcinogen-risk-assessment
28. Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc 1995;90:773-95.
29. Jeffreys H. Theory of probability. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press; London, UK; 1961.
30. Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, et al.; WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of some aromatic amines, organic dyes, and related exposures. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:322-3.
31. Cogliano VJ, Baan R, Straif K, et al. Preventable exposures associated with human cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1827-39.
32. EFSA Scientific Committee, Hardy A, Benford D, Halldorsson T, Jeger MJ, Knutsen HK, More S, et al. Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA J 2017;15:e04971.
33. Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, et al. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ Health Perspect 2001;109:871-6.
34. Mobbs A, Kahn M, Williams G, et al. Machine learning for automating subjective clinical assessment of gait impairment in people with acquired brain injury - a comparison of an image extraction and classification system to expert scoring. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2024;21:124.
35. Pinto-Coelho L. How artificial intelligence is shaping medical imaging technology: a survey of innovations and applications. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023;10:1435.
36. von Borries K, Holmquist H, Kosnik M, et al. Potential for machine learning to address data gaps in human toxicity and ecotoxicity characterization. Environ Sci Technol 2023;57:18259-70.
37. Job S, Tao X, Cai T, et al. Exploring causal learning through graph neural networks: an in-depth review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Mining Knowl Discov 2025;15:e70024.
How to Cite
Micro(nano)plastics and cancer link hypothesis: applying the Bayesian assessment of research causality framework for transparent evidence integration in public health. (2026). Working Paper of Public Health, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/wpph.2026.10648
Copyright (c) 2026 Tan Aik Kah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
