Hospitalization in Winnipeg, Canada due to occupational disease: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to identify the extent of occupational exposures to hazardous substances amongst male medical inpatients and to determine the extent to which these exposures may have contributed to the development of medical conditions. METHODS: A random sample of 297 male who were admitted from outside the hospital to the medical wards to a large tertiary care hospital, were between age 18-75 and could communicate in English completed an occupational history questionnaire. This information was merged with an inpatient database which contained patient demographics, admission diagnoses, and co-morbidity data. A specialist in occupational medicine and internal medicine determined whether the medical conditions the participants had were related to their exposures. RESULTS: One individual had a condition causing admission that was related to his work and 12 others (4%) had a condition that was possibly related to their work which had caused symptoms. One additional individual was found to have asymptomatic asbestos related pleural fibrosis. Fourteen of 37 possible harmful occupational exposures were reported by more than 10% of the study participants. On average each participant reported 5.5 exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational exposures to male medical inpatients are common. For 4.4% (13/297) of male admissions to the general medical wards from the emergency room occupational factors may have played a role in the development of medical conditions which led to admission or to major co-morbidities. Detailed occupational histories will likely lead to more suspected cases of work related medical admissions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".