Asthma and occupation in the 1958 birth cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of adult onset asthma with lifetime exposure to occupations and occupational exposures. METHODS: We generated lifetime occupational histories for 9488 members of the British 1958 birth cohort up to age 42 years. Blind to asthma status, jobs were coded to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1988 and an Asthma Specific Job Exposure Matrix (ASJEM) with an expert re-evaluation step. Associations of jobs and ASJEM exposures with adult onset asthma were assessed in logistic regression models adjusting for sex, smoking, social class at birth and childhood hay fever. RESULTS: Of the 7406 cohort members with no asthma or wheezy bronchitis in childhood, 639 (9%) reported asthma by age 42 years. Adult onset asthma was associated with 18 occupations, many previously identified as risks for asthma (eg, farmers: OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.06 to 8.80; hairdressers: OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.85; printing workers: OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.49 to 6.18). Four were cleaning occupations and a further three occupations were likely to use cleaning agents. Adult onset asthma was associated with five of the 18 high-risk specific ASJEM exposures (flour exposure: OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.85; enzyme exposure: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.42; cleaning/disinfecting products: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.22; metal and metal fumes: OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.07; textile production: OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.61). Approximately 16% (95% CI 3.8% to 27.1%) of adult onset asthma was associated with known asthmagenic occupational exposures. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that about 16% of adult onset asthma in British adults born in the late 1950s could be due to occupational exposures, mainly recognised high-risk exposures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".