Psychological distress and occupational asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent findings on the psychological impact of occupational asthma, on the basis of a review of medical and psychological literature published between 1998 and 2008. For the purposes of this review, 'psychological impacts' are defined as the experience of psychological stress or distress, which refers to the experience of negative emotions (e.g., anxiety and sadness/depression). When severe and chronic, psychological distress may reach clinical levels and is referred to as a 'psychiatric disorder', which is a clinical diagnosis based on established diagnostic criteria. RECENT FINDINGS: Only one original article assessing psychological impacts has been published in the past 10 years (in 2007). Levels of psychological distress (i.e., depression, anxiety, and cognitive dysfunction) were all in the clinical range, and rates of anxiety disorders and dysthymia (a chronic form of depression) affected approximately 35 and 23% of patients, respectively. SUMMARY: The paucity of available literature indicates that the study of psychological factors associated with occupational asthma is still in its infancy. Though preliminary and in need of replication, the only published study to date suggests that patients with occupational asthma may be highly anxious and many are chronically depressed, a finding that is consistent with previous studies with nonoccupational asthmatics. The established link between psychological factors (e.g., depression and anxiety) and nonoccupational asthma suggests that future studies are desperately needed to more comprehensively assess the scope and severity of the psychological burden of this disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".