A meta‐analysis on wood dust exposure and risk of asthma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work-related asthma is the most common occupational respiratory disorder in the industrialized countries. It has been postulated that wood dust exposure may increase the risk of work-related asthma. The objective of this study was to assess, through a meta-analysis, the risk of developing work-related asthma associated with wood dust exposure. A systematic search of the literature was performed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and a quality scale used to measure the quality of the included studies was developed. Using standard meta-analysis techniques, studies were pooled using both random and fixed effects models. Nineteen studies were included which consisted of three cohort studies, twelve case-control studies and four mortality studies. The pooled relative risk (RR) of asthma among workers exposed to wood dust was 1.53 (95% CI 1.25-1.87). When the analysis was restricted to studies carried out on Caucasian populations, the pooled RR was 1.59 (95% CI 1.26-2.00) while the pooled RR of studies on Asian populations was 1.15 (95% CI 0.92-1.44). Wood workers present a higher risk of asthma. Future research should include careful evaluation of ethnicity and nativity as risk modifiers.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it