MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3027422466 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxaa049

Occupational Dermatitis in Welding: Does Nickel Exposure Account for Higher Rates in Women? Analysis of a Canadian Cohort

2020· article· en· W3027422466 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Nicola Cherry, Jean‐Michel Galarneau

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWorkSafeBCCSA Group
Mots-clésMedicineCohortOccupational DermatitisCohort studyHand dermatitisContact dermatitisEnvironmental healthDemographyInternal medicineImmunologyAllergy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Women are reported to have higher rates of nickel sensitization than men, but there have been few studies of sex-related differences in dermatitis associated with occupational nickel exposure. This analysis examines dermatitis in a large cohort of women and men in welding and electrical occupations and considers how far differences in rates of dermatitis may be accounted for by nickel exposure. METHODS: Women and men were recruited to cohorts of workers who had entered welding and electrical apprenticeships (the WHAT-ME and WHAT-MEN studies). Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months for up to 5 years. At each contact, cohort members were asked about current dermatitis and whether it was made worse by work. From the first follow-up after recruitment, those working in their trade completed detailed subroutines about tasks in their trade including, for welders, the process, base metal, and consumables. Exposures were considered by trade and, within welding, by stainless or high alloy steel (SOHAS) as the base metal. Urinary nickel concentration was also examined. Using only report of dermatitis that began after entry to the trade, new-onset dermatitis, all episodes of dermatitis, and dermatitis made worse by work were examined against exposure by multilevel, multivariable logistic regression, allowing for potential confounding. RESULTS: Among 1885 participants (welders; 447 women, 554 men: electrical trades; 438 women, 446 men), 200 reported dermatitis that started before they entered the trade, leaving 1685 for analysis. Women, but not men, who had entered the welding trades were more at risk of new onset [odds ratio (OR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.32] or dermatitis episodes (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.10-2.77) than those entering the electrical trades. Within welding, women were more at risk than men of new-onset dermatitis (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 1.15-2.96) and dermatitis episodes (2.14; 95% CI 1.24-3.68) but were not more likely to report these were made worse by work. Use of SOHAS as the base metal was associated with reports that dermatitis was made worse by work (3.54; 95% CI 1.04-12.03), but having adjusted for SOHAS use, women still remained at greater risk. A final analysis considered the effect on risk estimates of removing those welding SOHAS from the analysis. The risk for women of episodes of dermatitis was essentially unchanged, whether the comparison group was male welders or women in the electrical trades. CONCLUSIONS: Welding is associated with risk of dermatitis in women. Although welding of SOHAS was associated with dermatitis that was made worse by work, it does not importantly explain the higher female rates in welding and other causes must be examined to support preventive measures.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,111
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,962

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2020
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthMême sujetContact Dermatitis and AllergiesTravaux en français237 207