Effects of talc dust on respiratory health: results of a longitudinal survey of 378 French and Austrian talc workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate the effects on respiratory health of talc dust, free of asbestiform fibres, at or below airborne concentrations of 2 mg/m(3). METHODS: The respiratory health and dust exposure of all workers with at least 5 years of employment at two talc producing facilities in France and Austria were surveyed between 1988 and 2003. Standard forced expiratory volumes and standard chest x rays were obtained on repeated occasions and recorded using strict quality control procedures. Of a target population of 430 subjects, 378 (88%) were examined at least twice. A quantitative exposure matrix was set up based on 4602 personal exposure measurements of respirable dust and qualitative descriptions of the industrial processes and individual protection devices. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 14.5 years with a mean estimated talc dust concentration during follow-up of 1.46 mg/m(3). The prevalence of small radiological opacities and lung function parameters were significantly related to cumulative exposure at inclusion but not to exposure during the study period. Overall, the forced expiratory volume in 1 s decreased by 66 ml per 100 years.mg/m(3), which is less than that reported for other types of mineral dusts. CONCLUSIONS: Although early exposure levels to talc as assessed at inclusion were associated with decreased lung function and an increased prevalence of small radiological opacities, there was no evidence of detrimental effects of talc exposure, as assessed within the study period, on lung function and small radiological opacities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".