Vibration exposure and disease in a shipyard: A 13‐year revisit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a 1988 study of shipyard workers, a progressive association was observed between cumulative exposure to vibration and the vascular and neurological symptoms of the hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS). In 2001, after a decade of exposure reduction and ageing of the workforce, a second study at the same site was initiated. METHODS: In 2001, 214 subjects were selected; they represented four current weekly vibration exposure time intervals--0 hr, >0 < 5 hr, > or =5 < 20 hr, > or =20 hr. The 1988 and 2000 cross-sectional populations were compared on the basis of exposure duration and current symptoms. RESULTS: In 2001, the study population was 9.6 years older than the 1988 group. Current weekly exposure hours were similar in the low and medium exposure groups 2001 and 1988, but exposure was reduced by an average of 9.7 hr per week in the highest exposure group (> or =20 hr) in 2001. Symptom severity was regressed polychotomously on estimated exposure (log cumulative hours); the OR was weaker in 2001 than in 1988 for sensorineural symptoms-1.44 [CI 1.04-1.98] versus 2.35 [CI 1.48-3.73]. This was also true for vascular symptoms-1.70 [CI 1.06-2.71] versus 3.99 [CI 2.27-7.01]. Vascular symptoms were more prevalent in the highest lifetime vibration exposure group in 1988 (68.7 vs. 43.2% in 2001); sensorineural symptoms were more prevalent in the least vibration exposed group in 2001 (52.6 vs. 20.7% in 1988). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of vascular symptoms associated with cumulative vibratory exposure was significantly greater in 1988, but neurological symptoms were more common at lower exposure levels in 2001. The presumption that reducing exposure duration alone is sufficient, in the absence of change in vibration magnitude, is not supported by the results of this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".