A meta‐analysis on wood dust exposure and risk of asthma
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".