MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975645585 · doi:10.1080/19338244.2014.941094

Work-related exacerbation of asthma among adults treated by pulmonary specialists

2014· article· en· W1975645585 on OpenAlexaff
Khosro Sadeghniiat‐Haghighi, Omid Aminian, Arezu Najafi, Soussan Salehpour, Alireza Eslaminejad, Gholamreza Derakhshan Deilami, Keramat Nourijelyani, Susan M. Tarlo

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Environmental & Occupational Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaOccupational asthmaExacerbationEnvironmental healthAllergyCross-sectional studyOccupational lung diseaseJob-exposure matrixOccupational diseaseDiseaseOccupational exposurePhysical therapyInternal medicineImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most common chronic occupational lung disease is occupational asthma. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of work-related respiratory symptoms (WRS) in asthmatic adults at pulmonary clinics. A cross-sectional study was performed. Current employed subjects were subdivided into 2 groups by WRS status according to questionnaire mainly based on one developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Subjects' occupation and workplace exposures were evaluated by asthma-specific job exposure matrix (JEM). Thirty-nine of 179 current employed asthmatics had WRS. Subjects with WRS were more likely to have self-reported allergy and exposure to low-molecular-weight antigens (prevalence ratio [PR]: 2.7). The 2 most frequent occupational classes for asthmatics with WRS were trades, transport and equipment operators, and processing and manufacturing. Self-reported allergy, high-risk exposures, and occupations unique to processing, manufacturing, and utilities were estimated to be risk factors of WRS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Environmental & Occupational HealthSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207