Occupational Asthma in Adults in Six Canadian Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the prevalence, population attributable risk (PAR), and clinical characteristics of occupational asthma (OA) in a randomly selected population in six communities in Canada. Our study followed the European Community Respiratory Health Survey protocol. A randomly selected population of 18,701 (87% response rate) persons from the study communities, ranging in age from 20 to 44 yr, completed an initial questionnaire, of whom 2,974 (39% response rate) attended the laboratory and completed supplementary questionnaires. Of these latter individuals, 383 had asthma. Asthma was defined as physician-diagnosed asthma, and adult-onset asthma was defined as a first attack at age 15 yr or older. We used several methods for estimating OA as follows: (1) reporting of a high-risk job (occupation and industry) for OA at the time of asthma onset (Probable OA); (2) reporting of exposure to a substance that may cause OA (Possible OA) while not in a high-risk job at the time of asthma onset; and (3) combination of the PAR for high-risk jobs and exposures. The prevalence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of Probable OA and Possible OA combined was 36.1% (31.3 to 41.0%) among subjects with adult-onset asthma. The occupations most commonly reported in association with OA were nursing in the Probable OA group and clerical and food preparation in the Possible OA group. The clinical characteristics and exposures reported by both groups were similar. The PAR for adult-onset asthma in high-risk jobs and exposures was 18.2%. The assessment of occupation and industry alone, rather than of exposures, may underestimate the contribution of occupational exposures to asthma prevalence.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".