Incidence and host determinants of work‐related rhinoconjunctivitis in apprentice pastry‐makers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors recently assessed the incidence and determinants of immunologic sensitization to flour in apprentice pastry-makers. The aim of this work was to determine the incidence of work-related rhinoconjunctivitis (RC) symptoms and their determinants. METHODS: For this 188/230 entrants (81.7%) were evaluated before starting exposure to flour, and again 10.8 and 16.8 months after. Questionnaires and skin prick testing to common and work-related allergens were administered at each visit. Bronchial responsiveness to methacholine was assessed at baseline in all subjects and in a subgroup at follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty subjects (16.1%) reported new work-related RC symptoms (13.1 per 100 person-years); in three subjects (1.6%), these were accompanied by incident skin prick test reactivity to flour-derived allergens. Skin prick test reactivity to grass pollens (OR = 3.0, 95% CI, 1.3-6.7) and to pets (OR = 2.5, 95% CI, 1.1-5.9), persistent rhinitis (OR = 3.1, 95% CI, 1.1-8.4), seasonal RC (OR = 2.5, 95% CI, 1.1-5.5), RC on contact with pets (OR = 2.3, 95% CI, 1.03-5.0) and skin prick test reactivity to wheat flour (OR = 10.5, 95% CI, 2.3-46.8), assessed at baseline, were significantly associated with the incidence of work-related RC symptoms. Multivariate logistic regression analysis yielded significant OR of skin prick test reactivity to wheat flour at baseline (OR = 7.1, 95% CI, 1.7-35.1) and persistent rhinitis (OR = 3.9, 95% CI, 1.01-9.6) for the incidence of work-related RC symptoms. Increased bronchial hyperresponsiveness at follow-up was more frequent, although not significantly, in subjects positive to skin prick test to flour on entry and reporting new work-related symptoms (3/5), than in other subjects (4/17). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of work-related RC symptoms among apprentice pastry-makers was high (16.1% 30/186), while a minority (3/30) also developed skin prick test reactivity to flour. Skin prick test reactivity to wheat flour and persistent allergic rhinitis on starting exposure to flour are significant determinants for the development of work-related RC symptoms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".