Role of underlying pulmonary obstruction in short‐term airway response to metal working fluid exposure: A reanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Among epidemiologic studies that found evidence for associations between exposures to metal working fluids (MWF) and pulmonary function impairments, one found effects restricted to workers with fixed obstruction at baseline. We reanalyzed a previously published study on MWF exposure and cross‐shift pulmonary function to further evaluate this finding. Methods Pulmonary function was measured cross‐shift on Monday and Friday in 131 male automotive workers. Quantitative personal MWF exposure data were available. Those with an FEV1/FVC ratio of ≤0.72 were considered obstructed. Results There was a trend towards increasing incidence of cross‐shift decrement in FEV1 as MWF exposure increased in the full cohort as well as when the results were restricted to the 19 (14.5%) who were obstructed. Those with obstruction were slightly more likely to show decrements in FEV1 on Fridays. Removing the obstructed subgroup did not appear to substantially weaken the exposure–response relation. Conclusions No important differences were found in cross‐shift effects of MWF between obstructed and non‐obstructed workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43:286–290, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".