Investigating Respiratory Responses to Metalworking Fluid Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to worker and union representative concerns, the association between metalworking fluid exposure and respiratory symptoms was investigated in a cross-sectional survey, in a large automotive machining location. A self-administered respiratory symptom-screening questionnaire was sent to 2935 current employees. MWF exposure levels were assigned to respondents on a departmental basis based on average and "peak" area aerosol measurements. MWF exposure, years in the plant, and smoking status were regressed on presence or absence of daily or weekly respiratory symptoms, as well as upper and lower respiratory symptom groupings derived from principal components factor analysis. The response rate was 81 percent. Symptom prevalence was high: 29 percent of subjects reported weekly or daily phlegm; 23 percent, dry cough; 42 percent, runny or plugged nose. Average aerosol concentration in departments with exposure ranged from 0.02 to 0.84 mg/m(3), and peak levels from 0.02 to 2.85 mg/m(3). Average exposures ranging from 0.25 to 0.84 mg/m(3), as compared to exposures in the range of 0.02 to 0.09 mg/m(3), were statistically significantly associated with wheezing, chest tightness, sore throat, and hoarse throat, as well as with the upper respiratory symptom grouping. When peak exposure was included in the regression, it exerted a stronger effect than average exposure level on dry cough, phlegm, wheezing, fever/chills, and hoarse throat, as well as on upper and lower respiratory symptom groupings. These effects were independent of smoking status. Exposure-symptom trends for the average and peak departmental area concentration categories were statistically significant for the upper and lower respiratory symptom groupings and for most individual symptoms. We have observed an association of increasing upper and lower respiratory symptoms with estimated MWF exposure, measured independently, at average departmental aerosol concentrations well below the NIOSH recommended personal exposure level of 0.5 mg/m(3). The results have been used to prioritize exposure reduction efforts in the workplace.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".