Respiratory health of automobile workers and exposures to metal‐working fluid aerosols: Lung spirometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial evidence that workers exposed to metal-working fluids (MWF) have increased respiratory morbidity, the few studies of chronic effects on lung function have not been conclusive. METHODS: Lung spirometry was measured and both current and past exposures to metal-working fluid (MWF) aerosols were estimated in this cross-sectional cohort of 1,811 male automobile workers. Satisfactory exposure data were available for 1,745 (96%): 239 assemblers (never-exposed to MWF), 487 assemblers (previously exposed), 352 machinists currently exposed to straight oils, 441 to soluble oils, and 226 to synthetic fluids. Operations were classified as either grinding or non-grinding machining. RESULTS: Current exposure was not found to be associated with either forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) or forced ventilatory capacity (FVC). Nor was past exposure to water-based fluids (soluble or synthetic MWF) related to pulmonary function. Past exposure to straight oils, however, was significantly associated with FVC. This association was more obvious among older workers and among workers who had never transferred from MWF exposed jobs to assembly. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the association between FVC and lifetime exposure to straight MWF was slightly larger than the estimated cigarette effect, suggesting that the impact of an additional year of exposure to 1 mg/m(3) of mineral oil particulate in the thoracic particle size range, has the same impact on FVC as smoking one pack per day for one more year.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".