Dust content of lungs and its relationships to pathology, radiology and occupational exposure in Ontario hardrock miners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autopsied lungs from 29 hard rock miners were investigated to determine the relationship of the dust content to pathology, radiology, and occupational exposure. METHODS: Each lung was divided horizontally into three sections. Pathological and radiological studies and chemical analyses were carried out on samples from each section. The hilar lymph nodes were also studied chemically. The work history and smoking history were assessed. The occupational exposure to silica and total dust were estimated. The effect of smoking was examined, and the relationship between dust content of the lungs to that of the lymph nodes were also investigated. RESULTS: There was a good agreement between radiologic and pathologic findings. Positive correlations were seen between hydroxyproline (as an index of fibrosis), silica dust, non-silica inorganic dust, radiographic category of pneumoconiosis and pathologic grade of silicosis. Smokers lost on average 7 years of life compared to non-smokers, but numbers were small and no adjustment was made. Silica appeared to be concentrated in lungs and lymph nodes compared to the estimates of silica concentration in the mining environment. Silica in the lymph nodes on average is 2.4-fold higher than in the lungs. CONCLUSIONS: This study of autopsied hard rock miners lungs shows positive relationships between lung dust and hydroxyproline content, radiological and pathological findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".