Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Do They Affect Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Differently in Women and Men?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This workshop summary examines current research that addresses the question: Are women more susceptible than men to the effects of inhaled pollutants, namely those found in work or residential environments? A systematic literature review was performed in preparation for the workshop. A total of 73 recent (since 2000) articles were retrieved reporting on occupational and environmental exposures and their impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, of which only nine provided gender-stratified results. In two mortality studies, results were contrary (one finding increased chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality in relation to traffic among elderly women compared with men, the other finding no gender difference). Two other environmental studies suggested small gender differences with slightly greater effect of biomass or traffic-related pollution among women. Four of five occupational studies also found increased effects of workplace pollutant exposure on measures of chronic airflow obstruction or bronchitis symptoms in women; again the differences were small. Preliminary findings from analysis of pooled data from six cross-sectional occupational surveys by our team also indicated increased relative risk for airflow obstruction in relation to work in industrial or service jobs among women compared with men, but only when airflow obstruction was measured using a gender-specific approach to determining the lower limit of normal. Workshop participants identified five key gaps and research needs, including the development of gender-sensitive tools for conducting future research in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".