Estimating the Time Interval Between Exposure to the World Trade Center Disaster and Incident Diagnoses of Obstructive Airway Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory disorders are associated with occupational and environmental exposures. The latency period between exposure and disease onset remains uncertain. The World Trade Center (WTC) disaster presents a unique opportunity to describe the latency period for obstructive airway disease (OAD) diagnoses. This prospective cohort study of New York City firefighters compared the timing and incidence of physician-diagnosed OAD relative to WTC exposure. Exposure was categorized by WTC arrival time as high (on the morning of September 11, 2001), moderate (after noon on September 11, 2001, or on September 12, 2001), or low (during September 13-24, 2001). We modeled relative rates and 95% confidence intervals of OAD incidence by exposure over the first 5 years after September 11, 2001, estimating the times of change in the relative rate with change point models. We observed a change point at 15 months after September 11, 2001. Before 15 months, the relative rate for the high- versus low-exposure group was 3.96 (95% confidence interval: 2.51, 6.26) and thereafter, it was 1.76 (95% confidence interval: 1.26, 2.46). Incident OAD was associated with WTC exposure for at least 5 years after September 11, 2001. There were higher rates of new-onset OAD among the high-exposure group during the first 15 months and, to a lesser extent, throughout follow-up. This difference in relative rate by exposure occurred despite full and free access to health care for all WTC-exposed firefighters, demonstrating the persistence of WTC-associated OAD risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".