Olfactory sensitivity in medical laboratory workers occupationally exposed to organic solvent mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Published epidemiological information relating the effects of occupational exposure to organic solvents (OS) to olfaction is limited. AIMS: The objectives of this pilot study were to measure the chemosensory abilities of medical laboratory employees occupationally exposed to OS mixtures, to compare these with control workers employed within the same occupational setting and to correlate chemosensory performance with OS exposure history and with employees' hedonic (pleasantness) perceptions about workplace OS odors. METHODS: Twenty-four medical laboratory employees (OS-exposed technicians plus control workers minimally exposed to OS) completed a health-related questionnaire, a test of pyridine odor detection threshold, along with a gustatory detection threshold test involving aqueous quinine solutions. Estimates of cumulative hours of OS exposure (CSI) were calculated from self-reports. RESULTS: OS-exposed laboratory technicians detected weaker concentrations of pyridine odor. Positive correlations were detected between CSI estimates to both pyridine detection and the degree that participants reported that OS odors were present in the workplace. However, no association was detected between pyridine detection and how unpleasant workplace OS odors were perceived. The OS-exposed participants were able to detect weaker concentrations of quinine. Compared to controls, OS-exposed workers complained more of experiencing several symptoms while working, including headaches, nasal irritation and mild cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this cross-sectional pilot study indicated that, compared to controls, medical laboratory technicians exposed to low-level OS mixtures displayed evidence of elevated olfactory sensitivity (hyperosmia) to pyridine odor. The relation of this study's results to chemical intolerance warrants further investigation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".