Upper airway symptoms among workers with work-related respiratory complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work-related rhinitis and asthma symptoms frequently co-exist. AIMS: To determine the prevalence and nature of nasal, pharyngeal, laryngeal and sinus symptoms among individuals with work-related respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Individuals referred to a tertiary occupational asthma clinic for investigations with specific inhalation challenges were evaluated using the RHINASTHMA quality of life questionnaire and a questionnaire that assessed the nature and frequency of upper airway symptoms, their relationship to the workplace and their temporal relationship with the onset of asthma symptoms. RESULTS: There were 83 study participants. At least one upper airway symptom was reported by all of these individuals: nasal in 92%; pharyngeal in 82%; laryngeal in 65% and sinus in 53% of participants. Overall, there were no significant differences in the frequencies of nasal, pharyngeal, laryngeal and sinus symptoms when comparing these with occupational asthma (OA), work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) and work-related respiratory symptoms (WRS), except that nasal bleeding was most frequent among those with WRS. The presence of laryngeal symptoms was significantly associated with rhinitis-specific quality of life impairment. Individuals with workplace exposures to high molecular weight agents had greater impaired quality of life than those who were exposed to low molecular weight agents (RHINASTMA Upper Airway sub-scores: 24.0±10.4 versus 19.8±6.8; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who were referred for work-related respiratory symptoms experienced high rates of work-related nasal, pharyngeal, laryngeal and sinus symptoms, regardless of having OA, WEA or WRS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".