Data linkage to estimate the extent and distribution of occupational disease: new onset adult asthma in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although occupational asthma is a well recognized and preventable disease, the numbers of cases presenting for compensation may be far lower than the true incidence. METHODS: Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) claims for any reason 1995-2004 were linked to physician billing data. New onset adult asthma (NOAA) was defined as a billing for asthma (ICD-9 code of 493) in the 12 months prior to a WCB claim without asthma in the previous 3 years. Incidence was calculated by occupation, industry and, in a case-referent analysis, exposures estimated from an asthma specific job exposure matrix. RESULTS: There were 782,908 WCB eligible claims, with an incidence rate for NOAA of 1.6%: 23 occupations and 21 industries had a significantly increased risk. Isocyanates (OR 1.54: 95% CI 1.01-2.36) and exposure to mixed agricultural allergens (OR = 1.59: 95% CI 1.17-2.18) were related to NOAA overall, as were exposures to cleaning chemicals in men (OR = 1.91:95% CI 1.34-2.73). Estimates of the number of cases of occupational asthma suggested a range of 4% to about half for the proportion compensated. CONCLUSIONS: Data linkage of administrative records can demonstrate under-reporting of occupational asthma and indicate areas for prevention.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".